I understand that is how it seems but when you make these statements as if they are fact you ignore the equal fact that it is not a universal truth. Nor is it fact. Nor does it take account of the fact that men typically have wives who take on the domestic duties. You don't allow for exceptions and you don't seem to consider occupations where females predominate. I have worked across almost every sector and the ones who typically scrabble for power are men - in sector after sector. women don't necessarily seek power - they seek recognition, and the opportunity to achieve without being booged down by sexist views such as yours. I have a fair amount of experience in assessing capability using a range of different methods - that apply good science and your view of womens' capabilities is not backed up by facts, nor is your view that women - in general don't work as hard as men.
You can argue all you like about the reason for different pay rates but on that to you are working off opinion not facts. to embed a system that is based on post war employment patterns and job values is to provide a way of continuing to justify pay differentials based on a sexist view of the workplace and job value. It has absolutely nothing to do with effort or skill and everything to do with conservative, sexist views of the world.
I know by now that nothing I say will change your views on that and those attitudes are typical of what women have faced over centuries. But I have little respect for views that come from prejudice. I have over many decades been involved in enough studies in the workplace to talk from a basis of fact.
One study I did in a significant australian business showed very clearly that neither performance nor competence nor effort had a single thing to do with pay. for men it was height - the greatest predictor of pay was a man's height with taller men being paid more. for women the inverse was true. too short of too tall beyond the average height for women was demonstrably related to lower pay. In another - also a household name - female intellect was negatively correlated with pay - the smarter the woman the less she was paid. the reverse was true for men except for those in the top 2% of the population where there was no observable correlation.
