Right, but I think it is important to remember why or how women end up in lower paying jobs.

It can be very difficult to be hired higher up or climb a corporate ladder as a woman because men are typically in hiring positions (because this cycle has gone on since women were not in the work field). This is not to say men do not hire women, but research has shown fairly consistently that society in general chooses male leaders over female leaders based on gender stereotypes. Take Hilary Clinton, for example. Some of the biggest criticisms she received were aspects of her gender/sex: PMS would control the White House, not logic. People do not want a female president because it feels like being nagged by your wife. How could she be a good mother and a good president? These are things that are NEVER discussed when a male candidate is being considered, and just goes to show how strong gender stereotypes can grow in our culture.

Also, companies often expect women to eventually need maternity leave. If they anticipate a woman (especially one in a critical role) leaving for a long period of time and/or quitting to be a mother, they are less likely to hire her over a man. Even if the topic never comes up, a woman of child-bearing age is a potential risk to an employer.

Which brings me to my last point. Women are expected by society to be the homemaker and to rear the children. So if a woman knows she will eventually want to be a mother, she feels she needs to choose a career path that allows her to take maternity leave without issue. A CEO can't exactly be absent for two months without people complaining. Some argue that this is a mother's choice, but is it really? If women were not expected to be the sole caregiver for children, they would not be the only partner expected to give up long-term career opportunities to have a child.

Anyway. I'm not trying to argue, because I also believe that statistic can be a bit misleading. But the issue still rests with gender expectations and stereotypes.