[quote=Jorick]-Drafting Snip-[/quote]

Well financial and reputation motivations doesn't surprise me in the slightest... -.-

We'd all function far better in all of these issues of Government and Politic's focused on what their Job should be, helping and serving the people.
Rather than doing anything possible to stay in a position of power.

[quote=Jorick]-Circumcision Snip-[/quote]

Losing something of value before or after knowing you had it is a debateable/gray moral issue. 
I think we can agree here at least that it is that, debatable. 

Personally though, I think parent's shouldn't have say over a child's operations [u]if[/u] it's cosmetic and not for any actual need or purpose.
That's a human being/child you're supposed to be raising and protecting, not accessorizing.

Over all, with the fact circumscison does seem to be a debatable topic, while women and abortions is a cut and clear issue of body rights and health concerns.
It's probably safe to say that in terms of bodily rights women have it worse atm.

[quote=Jorick]See my response to Zaresto in regards to the pay gap for more clear numbers on the maternity thing.[/quote]

*Looks at it*

That is interesting.
Brovo below did bring up some good counter points to it, but they were counter points I already said before so I assume you've already taken Brovo's points into consideration.

Being 100% honest, I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect some sexism involved when it comes to hiring women or promoting them in the more well paying jobs.
But, to review.

A worker being out of the workforce for a couple of years can keep you back a bit from higher pay and positions.
This multiplies even more so in career's where the higher ranks require constant work, where leaving and needing a replacement can become a massive burden (such as say, a Company head).
A woman taking just 2-5 years off for children can make all the difference in this regard.

Then there's the matter to consider of hazard pay.
Women biologically are not as fit, strong or big as men. Making less woman then men qualify for more dangerous jobs.
So Men by simply being more likely to be allowed to work in hazardous work, are more likely given higher pay.

I'll continue on this with your next quote since it seems more relevant there.

[quote=Jorick]What? I don't get why you say it makes sense that the pay gap would get smaller in male-dominated fields. Construction work having one of the smallest pay gaps seems really strange to me, both because it's so heavily male-dominated and because it's a physically intensive job that brings up both biological facts and societal perceptions about women being less physically capable than men. Also, if you look at mining and quarrying type jobs, also physical work and even more male-dominated than construction, they're running a 20% pay gap. If there were some truth to male-dominated jobs having less pay disparity, that wouldn't be the case. Agriculture is another area more male-dominated than construction, and they're running a 15% pay gap. Construction is a weird outlier, not the norm.[/quote]

Yea... I was off my bonkers when I said that. :/
I don't know what messed up math was going on in my head at the time.

Ratio to men to women shouldn't matter when it's Job/field specific, which is what I think I forgot about.
I'm normally used to addressing the overall pay gap period, where a valid argument is that "women tend to flock to lesser paying fields".

I was probably in a tired state where I tried to translate that argument over to a career specific scenario and naturally it fell flat on it's face.
Sorry about that, rather embarrassing mistake for me to of made. :/

So... when career specific we can rule out the biology argument of build as well, since now we're simply comparing the men and women who were fit enough to enter the field so pay should be equal.
This lead's us with the arguments of basically maternity leave... A factor? Yes, but you're right in that this shouldn't be explaining a 20% gap in a specific field.

I suppose the best other defense (which does loop back to biology) is that the men workers probably are on average more strong and fit than women, allowing for more work and better performance.
Leading to better pay and positions more easily. But honestly, most of these jobs are mainly machine/technology based anyways so even that isn't a good enough defense.

So yes, I will admit. You've highlighted an issue where I originally thought there was none. Well done. :)
Now it's really a matter of finding the answer as to why this pay gap exists, and that would be a far more complicated issue and would need professional opinion from those in those fields of work to figure out.