I'm really disappointed. I ripped an article out of the L.A. Times the other day. I wanted to blog about it. Now, I can't find it anywhere. I remember the basics behind it. But one stat I wanted to quote accurately. I'll be off by a few hundred, but oh well.

A woman wrote about Siskel & Ebert, and the show "At the Movies". We know Gene Siskle passed away about 10 years ago. Ebert hasn't been with the show for awhile, but officially quit a few weeks back. And his sidekick Richard Roeper, who has been there at least 7 years, has quit.

Two young guys (both named Ben) have been hired to replace them. And this woman was upset. She said something along the lines of: There are 2,368 film critics in America. You know what percentage of them are women?

Now, when she said that...I guessed 15%. If she was mad, it had to be low.

Nope. It was 30%. So, what is her gripe? Now, personally, I think a woman and a man working the show would've been a better dynamic. But, more because you get different personalities. Would she like romances more? Would she be tougher on them, to show she doesn't just like "chick flicks"?

But, this reminded me of an argument I had with my friend Peg, when we worked in radio together. She was the highest rated afternoon DJ. She was also our Music Director (who is like the assistant to the Program Director). She complained she was the lowest paid music director in San Diego radio. I finally said, "Peg, our morning show, is the lowest paid morning show in the market (even though our ratings were in the middle of the pack). Also, our program director, was the lowest paid in the market." She didn't have an answer for that. She still swears, that it was because she was a woman.

Adam Carolla, claims women deserve to make 80 cents to the dollar. He said once, "A guy can go drinking until 4 a.m. And get up at 6, feeling like crap, and then swing a hammer all day. A woman would need to take the next two days off."

I've also wondered about the amount of times we've seen a woman cry in the work place. But that's a topic for another day.

The greatest thing was when that lady in the Parade section of the paper...can't think of her name. Marilyn Van something or other. She was asked the question about women making less than men. She said, "I don't believe they do." She explained a few reasons why. She also wanted to hear from people in different professions, and said she'd print the results. Which she never did.

Think about it, though. In government jobs, that certainly isn't the case. There's a pay scale that everyone follows (I know, my stepdad worked at the post office, and I spent a few years there). In fact, women often didn't have to do the physical things we had to do.

I remember 60 Minutes did a story about female fire fighters, not being able to pass the physical portions of the test. So, for them, the standards were lowered. But, womens groups never bring that up.

Marilyn brought up the fact that when she looked into the stats, she called a few law firms. She found at one, the women attorneys made less than the men. She talked to a woman that was there for 10 years, and a man, who worked about the same amount of time, yet made significantly more. The woman said, "Oh well....I took two years off when I had my child. He didn't. Also, he was putting in 4 hours extra a day. I wanted to go home and make dinner for my family. He deserves to be higher paid."

It makes me wonder, when these stats come out, do they break things down like this? Or do they just find out what female doctors make. And male doctors, and then womens groups complain.

I would say to my friend Peg, "If I was a female, and worked at a law firm, and I made $20,000 less than a male, I would say I wanted more money or I'd quit. If I was worth it, I'd get it. If not, I'd go to another law firm. Isn't that something you can do at every job?"

Now, don't get me wrong. I think a lot of women have it tough in the work place. There's a lot of good ol' boys that probably don't respect women. A woman that orders someone around is a "bitch" yet when a man does it, he's just strict.

I understand the sexual harrassment they have to deal with, etc.

But when it comes to pay, these things just aren't a factor.

I dated a Chinese woman in my early 20s, and all we did was argue. This was one of our debates, too. She said something like, "It's insane that Meryl Streep makes $5 million a film, while Arnold Schwarzenegger gets $20 million." I said, "No it isn't. Arnold can make a movie, and it makes $100 million. If Streep does a movie, she might get an Oscar nomination, but that doesn't mean it will make money."

Hollywood doesn't worry about whether you are male or female. They want butts in seats. She argued the point with me.

I had read something a few months prior, and was able to spring it on her. I said, "Who is the first actor that made a million bucks for a movie?" She guessed some man from the mid-70s. It was Liz Taylor, for Cleopatra, in the early 60s. She had just gotten married, didn't want to do it. They kept offering her more and more. Asked her how much it would take to do the film, she said a million bucks, thinking they'd never pay it. They did.

I then said to this woman, "Do you think studios say, 'We can't pay Madonna more than we're paying Michael Jackson. She's a woman.' No. Studios are bidding for the contracts of these people once they are big, and the contract runs out with one studio." She disagreed.

Now, when it comes to television news, yes, women get the short end of the stick. When their looks fade, so does their job security. Yet, Walter Cronkite can keep reading the teleprompter until he's 85, and people just think he's like an old, comforting, grandfatherly figure.

But, I'm sure there are professions where women make more. Waitressing. Modeling.

I don't know. I think women that complain about not being paid the same as men, aren't looking at the big picture.