We can discuss the shortcomings of data ad infinitum. Social Science has many limitations, and the most central problem is reliability. In other words, you can't go and ask employers "are you intentionally discriminating women in your workforce?". It's obvious that no one in their right mind would truthfully answer this question because A. They don't want to get sued. B. they may not even be aware that they are being sexist. C. People interpret sexism differently, so they may discriminate de facto, but reply that they are not.

The evidence to support the existence of a gender wage gap goes beyond quantitative data. Feminist theorists havedeveloped several concepts that they use to analyze the level of discrimination (ie a wage gap). For example, we take into consideration the socially-constructed assumption that women are groomed to assume care-taker roles (ie traditional gender roles). We are confident in this assumption based on content analysis of elementary school books (that show boys as doctors and girls as teachers, for example). We also see it marketing (have you seen the toy aisles, clothing stores, commercials, games, and so on?). We see the reflection of this assumption in women's "choices" (ie- we don't think it's coincidental that women end up in feminized professions). We see it in public discourse (how man talk about women and vice versa). We see it in written and spoken language. There are other concepts that we utilize in our studies and analysis. These arendssumptuons reports concepts that are developed before the test takes place.

So when you tell me that 1.6% of the gap is accounted for the fact that women tend to take more sick days than men, we already know that it happens because women are expected to take more sick days because they are more likEly to assume this traditional gender role.

In short, we don't base our assertion that the gender wage gap exists simply on one article, or one statistic. We assert the existence of the wage gap because we've spent time (hours, weeks, whole semesters, and even whole academic careers) analyzing and concluding that whatever is happening in the work worse between men and women is not accidental. It's a social force (that may be unintentional at the macro level) that has a severe affect on women's ability to progress in society due to their gender (and race, and sexual orientation, and many other factors).

Then all these "skeptics" come in and start questioning our body of knowledge. It's a good thing because it helps us polish our theory and arguments. But the problem is that these "skeptics" are not familiar with feminist theory well enough to provide legitimate arguments.

I say, study the theory, learn the concepts, and then give us an article that accounts for the assumptions and concepts that guide feminism. Then we can have a legitimate discussion.