Forty-five years after the Equal Pay Act, for every hour they work, women still earn just 81p of every pound earned by men. There are many ways of measuring the pay gap – pay for each hour worked, pay for each worker, total pay for all women, and for all men – but however you measure it, the story is the same: women earn less per hour, less per job and less overall.
However you measure it using those (extremely flawed) methods, the story is the same.
Unfortunately, every single one of those metrics is distorted because it doesn't take into account the pay for different roles: law, medicine, finance and STEM jobs pay higher than e.g. care and teaching roles.
AQG gives various estimates at male primary teachers, from 1 in 10 to 1 in 20, and a statement of "a quarter of primary schools have no male teachers".
On the Solicitor's Roll, 48.6% were women, however 60ish% of entrants to university and training contracts are women (from here, so we should see an equalisation (and then swing) in the next few years.
I've tried (and failed) to find the stats of university entrants - this showed that women are more likely to choose the likes of sociology and care fields compared to STEM, etc. We know there's been a big push to get more women into STEM which is a good thing as long as those women want to be in STEM. I don't want half of Gender Studies applicants refused entry and forced to go into Biochemistry if it's not something they want to do. However, those choices will maintain a "pay gap" if the ridiculous methods of calculation above continue to be used.