Since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping track of such things, women have been paid substantially less than men for comparable work. Remarkably and to America's shame, this condition persists today.

Women have made progress since this statistic first began to be reported in 1979, but not nearly enough. In 1979, women earned only 62 percent of men's pay for comparable work. It has climbed to 80 percent in the latest figures available, from 2008. Men earned an average weekly pay of $798, compared with women's $638.

When this figure began to be reported, we saw hope on two fronts:

First, the fact that it was being reported would lead to a relatively quick remedy for the obvious inequity. Who would contribute to the propagation of this anomaly once it came to light? The answer, apparently, is almost everyone.

And second, we thought it was inevitable that a solution would emerge, even though it would take time. Men in the highest-paying jobs couldn't just be ushered out the door, but as they retired, women would have their fair shot at those jobs.

As it turned out, though, while time has massaged the mess for the better, it hasn't produced a cure. Women are still making only 80 percent of men for comparable work.

This is absolutely confounding, because it occurs in every job category in which comparisons can be made. Comparisons cannot be made, for example, in occupations in which too few of one gender or the other works. Construction and maintenance, for instance, are populated to such an overwhelming degree by males that no comparison is possible.

But in all categories in which representative samples can be applied, men are simply paid more than women for the same work. This is just inconceivable.

We look around our own business, the Press-Republican, and know that people with more seniority or a higher job category are paid more than their colleagues, irrespective of gender. How could it be any other way? How could someone simply decide men should make more money because they are men. More important, perhaps, is why would anyone make that decision?

In days gone by, the prevailing sentiment was that men were the family wage earners, and women were working mostly as a supplement to the real bread-winner. In this sense, need was used as a determinant of salary.

If need is indeed a determinant, how could anyone argue that anyone is more needy than a single mother, for example?

The truth is that pay should be determined by talent, achievement, length of service and perhaps a few other more specifically applied criteria. The fact that gender still appears to be an irreversible criterion is astonishing and dispiriting.