Released this week, the list of women who "raked it in" last year includes execs of several big-name companies — Safra Catz (pictured), President of Oracle; Irene Rosenfeld, Chairman and CEO of Kraft; and Indra Nooyi, Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, to name a few. Some — like Andrea Jung of Avon and Sharen Turney of Victoria's Secret, work with products aimed at women, but many work in finance, technology, mining, and other gender-neutral or male-dominated industries. One thing that sticks out about the list, however, is how much less its members make than Fortune's 25 highest-paid men.

Catz, the top woman on the list, made $42.4 million in 2008. You have to go all the way down to number nine on the men's list (Jon Winkelried, president and co-COO of Goldman Sachs) to find someone who makes that little. And if the lists were merged, Catz would be the only woman in the top 25. Maybe the reason Fortune splits its list by gender at all is the same reason Olympic sports do — if it didn't, there'd be almost no women in the top spots. But there's a physical reason women can't usually beat men in, say, the marathon — and there's no good reason why a woman can't "rake in" $112.5 million, like highest-paid man Aubrey K. McClendon of Chesapeake Energy.

So should it bother us that no woman in corporate America is pulling down a $100 million-plus paycheck? On the one hand, bloated executive pay has gotten a lot of criticism in the recession, and in a country where so many people are without jobs and health insurance, maybe nobody should be making $100 million. Maybe we should be asking that the top 25 men make less, not that the women make more.

On the other hand, pay disparities way up in the stratosphere are symptomatic of other inequalities, inequalities that may have a bigger impact down here in normal space. A profile of Safra Catz, also in Fortune, highlights some of these inequalities. Writer Adam Lashinsky portrays Catz as a "bad cop" at Oracle who "enforces" CEO Larry Ellison's will. He quotes a "a Valley big shot" on her supposed coldness: "One day she is your long-lost sorority sister. The next day it's 'I don't know who the fuck you are.' " Most disturbing is an anecdote about an early meeting between Catz and an Oracle senior executive. "I'm here to help Larry," Catz said. The executive asked, "Does that mean you're getting his laundry?"

According to an article by Mary Ann Mason in the Chronicle of Higher Education, open sexism like this may be getting less common in the workplace. Rather, "women must adhere to a narrow band of behavior in order to be effective in mostly male settings." Catz's supposed "bad-cop" manner may fall outside this band, but she has managed to rise anyway. Would she be the front-runner to replace Ellison (rather than co-president Charles Phillips) if she followed Mason's advice to "speak low and slowly, but smile frequently?" It's hard to say. But Mason also writes that for women "the layers of missed opportunities, family obligations, and small and large slights build up over the years, slowing their career progress compared with men." These layers may be keeping women in the highest echelons from making the biggest bucks possible, but they have a proportionally higher impact on women lower down, for whom a promotion can mean much-needed money and job security.

Avon's Andrea Jung, #5 on Fortune's list, recently told Newsweek that women would lead the way out of the recession. She said,

More and more women clearly are emerging as breadwinners. I think the economic empowerment of women that has been growing over the past decade is at the "inflection point" with this global recession. Women are, we believe, the solution for their families in their ability to go out and increase household income. When a woman earns a dollar, the payback is higher. She'll invest in her children, in their education, health care, and basic needs. The impact of a woman's role in the economy benefits society at large and that has probably never been more important than it is now.

Women have reportedly been less affected by the recession, and it's certainly possible that their earnings will help bring about a recovery. If this happens, let's hope it results in more workplace equality — not just because it's good for society, but because it's right.

25 Highest-Paid Women [Fortune]
25 Highest-Paid Men [Fortune]
Women: The Answer [Newsweek]
Oracle's Enforcer - Safra Catz [Fortune]
How The 'Snow-Woman Effect' Slows Women's Progress [Chronicle of Higher Education]

The poll also shows that 75 percent of women support increased government spending on child care and early childhood education compared to 59 percent of men — and fully 77 percent of women identified pay equity as a must-do issue after the Inauguration in January. These results could help explain the 49-39 percent lead Barack Obama has over John McCain at the moment (since only one of them supports increasing spending on child care and education or a pay equity bill), but it doesn't explain why that gap isn't larger.

In the meantime, some women are finding alternate ways of making ends meet — through egg donation. Of course, the article is filled with the appropriate amount of "concern" and approbation that women are (gasp) selling their eggs as opposed to subjecting themselves to weeks of difficult and painful procedures simply out of the kindness of their baby-loving hearts. I don't recall there being this kind of paternalism present when it was more common for men to jerk off in cups for money to "help" women get pregnant, but it wasn't that much money, either. Sperm are a dime a dozen, but eggs are are just half a cell away from being citizens if some people have their way.

Poll: Economic Anxiety Among Women [Politico]
Pay Gap Persists: Women Still Make Less, Study Says [USA Today]
Poll: Trouble Signs in Obama's Lead [Time]
Dim Economy Drives Women To Donate Eggs For Profit [CNN]

Motherhood is part of the reason there's a pay gap, of course. TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber says women are "paying an unacceptable penalty simply for having children." And guess what? It's hard to have a kid without the involvement of a man at some point. Men want women who make less, then the women suffer financially when they become mothers.

In a recent issue of Star, the celeb tabloid put together a list of couples where the breadwinning lady is the one bringing in more dough: Gwen and Gavin, Katherine Heigl and Josh Kelly, Drew Barrymore and Justin Long, Julia Roberts and Danny Moder, Courteney Cox and David Arquette, Madonna and Guy Ritchie, Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubrey, Christina Aguilera and Jordan Bratman. But when we posted a story called "Dudes Don't Mind If A Lady Brings Home The Bacon," one commenter wrote, "Am I the ONLY one who would feel weird earning more than my boyfriend?" Around here? In an informal poll of the ladies working for this site? Yes.

In this day and age, what sense does it make? What about your worth? Let's say you make less than your man and then you get promoted. Would you turn down the cash to keep things less "weird"? Does having a larger salary make a man "manlier"? What if he lost his job? Or suddenly had a medical issue insurance wouldn't cover? What if he dies and the will is contested and you're left raising his kid(s)? Isn't modern marriage a partnership, where each party does the best he or she can? And if that means the woman brings in more money, shouldn't that be fucking awesome?

Blue Eyes And Low Salary Make Perfect Woman [Telegraph]
Motherhood 'Affects Women's Pay' [BBC News]
TUC Attacks Motherhood Penalty In The Workplace, Women Get Paid 16% Less Than Men On Avg — Report [Guardian]

Earlier: Dudes Don't Mind If A Lady Brings Home The Bacon