The United States now has its first female Speaker of the House, first female Secretary of State, and the first female lead news anchor. A woman is running the Episcopal Church, and Hillary Clinton just announced she wants to run the entire country. But according to the New York Times, in a story brokered the day before Christmas, the real news about women does not involve these successes.

The pay gap is back, and according to the Times, it is getting worse for women with a four-year college degree. The news prompted Susan Estrich to gasp, "A funny thing happened on the way to equality. High school graduates got stuck in the 75-cent range. College-educated women started moving backward. That's right, backward."

Did they? Alarmist rhetoric aside, Susan's piece was pretty unconvincing.  So was the story in the Times, which cites contrary opinion that pretty much demolishes the thesis.

By the calculations of Cornell economist Francine D. Blau, women between 36 and 45 years old earned 74.7 cents in hourly pay for every dollar that men in the same group did, based on Labor Department data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute. A decade earlier, the women earned 75.7 cents, a full penny more. The reasons for the stagnation, explains the Times, "are complicated and appear to include both discrimination and women's own choices." The data for the choices option, however, are far more convincing.

According to the same Labor Department tapped by gap devotees, the number of women staying home with young children has risen of late. The increase has been sharpest "among highly educated mothers, who might otherwise be earning high salaries." Susan Estrich does not cite those figures, but she does concede that "it's all about our choices," even if she doesn't like the prospect of women choosing to stay home.

Intelligent, educated women are doing this because they want to, whatever "researchers" happen to say about the statistical consequences.  The NYT story even cites Harvard economist Claudia Golden, who asks:  ''Do we want everyone to have an equal chance to work 80 hours in their prime reproductive years? Yes, but we don't expect them to take that chance equally often.''

That leaves the women who stay in the workplace. According to gap theory, they are victims of discrimination. The NYT even buffs up the old "glass ceiling" with unconvincing stories about familiar and politically correct targets such as Wal-Mart. On the other hand, even Ms. Francine Blau of Cornell conceded, "There is no proof that discrimination is the cause of the remaining pay gap."

So there really isn't one, just different choices that people make. As we have noted, women such as Carly Fiorina choose to run major corporations. Others try that world, find it wanting, and choose to do something else. Why, then, does the gap industry persist? Tucked into the NYT piece is this revealing information: "If the government offered day-care programs similar to those in other countries or men spent more time caring for family members, women would have greater time to pursue whatever job they wanted, according to this view."

Devotees of the gap have a policy goal in mind: more government programs. They want to expand the job description of Big Brother. That's why such stories will continue to emerge. Educated women should still make the career choices that best suit their needs. So should men, and the gap devotees should take notice.

Tell us, for example, the gap in wages between men who choose to work seven days a week, 50 weeks a year, and those who take time off to sail or climb mountains. Consider also the pay gap between men who choose to open Toyota dealerships and those who opt to become paramedics or part-time sociology professors. Is any discrimination involved? Maybe the New York Times can find out by next Christmas.

Sally Pipes is President and CEO at the California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. She can be reached via email at spipes@pacificresearch.org.