[flash]

I would say he argues that never-married childless women make more than never-married childless men. That very small population may be true.

Whether or not these women made a CHOICE not to be married, as did the men, that is probably even a smaller population.

Anytime you look at a very small group with specific criteria, you can find data to support a "surprising" outcome. Just look at all the medical studies on limited numbers of special groups, compared to the results of large populations without the same restrictions.

There are certain professions where women make more, certain professions that women tend to pursue. But as Liz Pullman points out in her book, some of these come from the way we were raised. One of her examples: ask women how many had a business before they were 18, few will raise their hands. Ask how many were baby sittters, most will raise their hands. Pullman points out that girls who are baby sitters tend to hear "how good they are with children" where as boys who baby sit or have grass trimming jobs, etc., are told how enterprising they are.

There is an entire dynamic being argued over "choice".

There is an entire argument continuing as to why women have to "choose", whereas men "get" to have it all.

If you look at the total population, women are statistically paid less than men.