Hodges and Budig attributed the net fatherhood wage premium, and differences in it among groups of men, to organizational reinforcement of the hegemonic masculinity that legitimates workplace power hierarchies. Yet hegemonic masculinity is constantly contested, and group wage inequalities vary as much across as within workplaces.  I present two pieces of co-authored research indicating that not even patriarchy is inevitable (reassuring words in the first months of a Trump presidency).  The first analyzes the PSID to reveal that the second wave feminist movement and Civil Rights Act of the 1960s reduced (but did not eliminate) the household specialization and racial-ethnic differences in the net fatherhood premium across two cohorts of U.S. men. The second takes advantage of Canadian linked employee-employer panel data to ascertain whether individual productivity and motivation versus organizational biases account for fathers' net wage premium.  Analyzing the role of sorting as well as firm characteristics in configuring the premiums, we find evidence of both. Fathers, and particularly less-advantaged fathers sort themselves into high-wage firms, whereas higher education predicts a larger premium net of establishment fixed effects.  Of the workplace formalization and compensation policies analyzed, only collective bargaining agreements eliminate the aggregate net fatherhood wage premium as well as all group differences in it. Together the studies highlight the importance of institutions in both reducing and sustaining gender and other group economic inequalities, and the need for further institutional change.