It is a shame that in this day and age – and in America, no less – a woman can only count on earning 77 cents for every dollar earned by one of her male counterparts. At least, that's the number President Obama keeps giving, and surely that means it's true.

Women are often the breadwinners of their families and caregivers of their children, and they are forced to work for less money simply because they were born with uteri. All can agree that this situation is deplorable and unacceptable. Businesses shouldn’t be allowed to hire more women just because they can pay them less than men. Men shouldn’t be turned down for jobs simply because they would have to be paid more than a comparably skilled woman.

Having considered this very atrocity for many months, and written many articles about this important subject, and looked into the various proposals to solve the problem, I have always found them inadequate. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act didn’t solve the problem; it simply restated current law and extended the period during which employees could sue over discriminatory pay. The Paycheck Fairness Act also would not go far enough to close the gender wage gap because it only clarifies existing law set forth in the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

That is why I am proposing a scheme that would actually close the wage gap and could solve a host of other problems women face today, like poverty, the Republican campaign to seize their body parts, and the word "bossy."

The question is, how do we help the 70 million or so women that are not earning 100 percent or more of what their male peers earn? Every reputable study suggests that working age women earn less than men mostly due to the choices women make in their careers. The scientists know this, the economists know this — even the White House knows this.

And so I humbly present my own proposal for closing the gender wage gap, which I hope will not only solve the problem but also satisfy voices on all sides of the argument. As a society, we must begin telling women what subjects they can major in, what colleges they can attend, and what jobs they can take.

For example, if men want to go into gender studies, let them — that way, they'll make less money and it will help close the gender gap. But women need to be kept away from such majors. Colleges and universities should in fact create separate lists of majors to give to men and women. If possible, women should not be told about any course of study that will yield lower-paying career choices in the future.

Among others, social science majors feed the gender gap. When women ask about those subjects or departments, colleges should tell them they don't exist, or that all classes are full, except maybe the ones in economics. Even better, colleges should tell women that engineering, mathematics and finance are actually social sciences. Class rosters must then be watched carefully. If a woman somehow manages to sign up for a sociology class, she should instead be given the classroom number for a course in mechanical engineering.

When women express a desire to pursue teaching or social work jobs, they should be discouraged. In fact, college counselors should be instructed to tell them there are no such jobs available, along with some sort of plausible explanation, like: "There are no teaching jobs available anymore, because Republicans cut the budget and the government is closing all of the schools. How about a nice career in accounting?"

Women who ask too many questions should be promptly steered into a nearby organic chemistry class, because no one can remain mentally alert for too long.

Feminists who might disapprove of this proposal should first ask themselves if they would be making more money had someone forced them to become an engineer rather than an activist. Would they have avoided the misfortunes and oppression they now suffer and condemn had they pursued a more useful course of studies and ended up with a higher-paying job?

I confess that ideally, I wouldn't want to promote this scheme. But the gender wage gap is such a serious issue, what choice do we have?