Now I'm not saying that you're exaggerating the amount of work you did in comparison to others (especially those tricksy women, amirite?), but it would be consistent with what we know about human nature and the actual data from the workplace of people who claim to work long hours.
My hours tended to be quite variable. We had 2 meetings a year that were brutal, and I had documented 100 hour weeks. Other times random meetings and experiments might add 10-15 hours. Support functions were really variable, and by nature random. And some times I worked a 40 hour week.
So any claims I might have made to the number of hours I worked, would be brute forced averaging.
note1: might there be a non-genderized clue in there? I thrive on chaos in a positive way. Some others probably hate it with a passion - my better half has next weeks meals and chores planned already.
So someone with children might not do so well with that - even though I would leave work at 5 to pick up the kid from daycare, then come back in. Flexibility. But still, a lot of people crave structure like plants crave Brawndo.
Might women as a group prefer more structure? Maybe - I'll probably catch shit from some quarters for asking the question.
Do some lifestyle choices make a difference? Hell, a single mother has a lot less flexibility.
In a forum like this, we can often get slammed into one camp or another. For some, my questions above put me squarely in the patriarchy camp.
It also ignores that I put in a good bit of time in recruiting young women into STEM fields, I put off three promotions in order that a woman get one. A silly HR quota system, and since it didn't affect pay, I was okay with it.
And in the end, when faced with the dilemma that the Ledbetter act places upon employers, I suspect that I would have been moved to an entirely different position, apart from the regular folks. Why they didn't do that in the first place is beyond me. It would have eliminated some folks from being pissed at me, and avoided other issues as well.