The conference room is filled with company executives - 10 men and two women. One woman suggests a solution to a problem. It is discounted by many of the men. Fifteen minutes later, the woman's idea is reborn with a slight twist by one of the men. It is implemented.

This is not an unusual occurrence. Women face a steep uphill climb to the top. While the incline has been reduced, it is still far from an equal playing field. Another arena where equality is clearly suspect is in salaries.

The U.S. House recently pushed through to the Senate the Paycheck Fairness Act, HR 1338, by a 247-178 vote. It seems incongruous that 178 representatives would be against fairness. Those voting "nay" will claim the bill is not about fairness. That is worth exploring. But for a moment, let's explore something else.

The "yea" and "nay" votes were pretty much along party lines: Every Democrat voted for HR 1338 and all Republicans, save 13, voted against it.

The vote proved just how divided we are when it comes to politics. That's a shame, even though it isn't surprising. Party alignment has been and continues to be a major hurdle to America's progress. What we seem to need the most in these troubled times is independent and critical thinkers who will do what is right, without fear nor favor of politics or party ideology.

Republicans aren't right all the time - nor are Democrats. But congratulations should be given to the 13 Republicans who braved voting against party lines - and might suffer consequences.

This is a simple situation that shouldn't be political. Women deserve equal pay.

Those against HR 1338 say the resolution isn't necessary because laws are already in place to guard against pay discrimination based on gender. Yes, there are laws in place, but they aren't working well enough, as gender pay discrimination has been widely documented.

Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, but The Institute of Women's Policy Research says wage disparity will cost a woman as much as $2 million over her lifetime in lost wages. Is that fair?

The legislation, opponents claim, will benefit trial lawyers, and that is possible. But why can't an amendment be negotiated and added to the legislation that would add safeguards against that?

According to The Associated Press, the pay equity measure "would treat gender discrimination involving pay in the same (manner) as race, disability and age discrimination. The bill would allow for compensatory and punitive damages, ban employers from retaliating against workers who share their salary with colleagues, and force employers to prove that paying a woman less than a man is job-related and necessary."

The bottom line is this: Women deserve better than the standard operating procedure in our political halls of "enlightenment."