I understand the factors with different professions, length of career, part-time work, (although there's is still the fact that women with children, specifically, will be paid less for the same work than men or single women). I just found it curious how Cannoli's assbackward logic got him to "women make less on average" = "market values them less and they are less attractive employees." The differential in pay between men and single women is mostly explained by "choices" - the "choices" and their outcomes are still problematic for a separate set of reasons.

I still want to hear the reasoning behind "men are almost universally more desirable employees." If anything, since women aren't paid as much, they are more valuable than men and less likely to be laid off, as this recession is showing. It sounded like pure sexism, and the superior of men was then used to justify the differential in average pay.