Hahahahaha… no. You can argue that the wage gap is an imperfect metric and that it can't take into account certain advantages but it has not ever been in favor of women.
I saw stats in the UK that for women who had not had kids yet the average pay was slightly higher in the same job than for blokes. Kids are the main thing that makes the difference.
You're talking about the adjusted wage gap, not the wage gap. The adjusted wage gap measures sexism on an individual basis — all else being equal. The wage gap measures sexism on a societal basis, this is where the "explained" parts fall away.
If 10% of the gap is explained by women having lower paying roles then that's good. Women aren't getting paid (that much) less for the same work. But it doesn't fix the issue of women systematically working lower paying roles or roles typically held by women being seen as less valuable.
The straight wage gap has never been in favor of women. "Men and women make the same when you control for the variables that cause them to make less" isn't as applicable when you're talking about group dynamics.
Hahahahaha… no. You can argue that the wage gap is an imperfect metric and that it can't take into account certain advantages but it has not ever been in favor of women.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/03/01/gender-pa...