Well I wouldn't assume the story is accurate - obviously she wants to make a good story. So applying for "identical jobs" might have some poetic freedom in it.
In any case, if she went to see the client face-to-face or by phone, all sorts of other things might have happened. She might have fared better on average than a man. There is no way to tell from her story.
It really is just a story, all sorts of other parameters could have affected the outcome. What sort of thing is she writing? Some subjects might be more readily associated with men, other with women.
The choice of names could have an effect in all sorts of ways, not only by signaling a gender.
Really, there is no substance here at all, I am sorry. If people want to get worked up about that story, it is because they want to get worked up about it, not because there is real substance.
For a better experiment, take the one with randomized CVs with randomized names, where black sounding names fared a lot worse than white sounding names. That is a proper experiment, because all other things besides the names were equal. This story here is not science. She herself is drawing a conclusion from her experience, but her subjective explanation doesn't really explain anything.
She could also be a pathological liar, secretly a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man or the Emir of Groovefunkistan. Once we start discounting the facts presented as fact by a principal in the article we might as well just switch to floral teapots in low earth orbit.
This story doesn't pretend to be science, why are we comparing it to randomized double-blind studies?
Why ask for science: because the story author and among others I think also you have started drawing conclusions from it ("society is still sexist", "women get paid less for equal work"). Where is the point in erecting this building of accusations if the foundations aren't sound? Unless it is just politics, which is OT on HN.
Speaking personally I don't think either of those conclusions can be drawn from this article, but nor do I think they're terribly controversial as broad generalizations.
I would love to see more and better science on the topic but I think there is still value in anecdotes and the discussions they result in.
"nor do I think they're terribly controversial as broad generalizations."
I do think they are controversial, as the statistics are usually very shallow. Apart from the "dumb" statistics (basically "on average, men earn more than women"), there are also lots of papers on how certain laws that are supposed to be helping women actually have the opposite effect, and other causes for the difference.
The "uncontroversial" bit is exactly what is standing in the way of finding a solution.
Anecdotes are OK, but don't generalize from them, please.
In any case, if she went to see the client face-to-face or by phone, all sorts of other things might have happened. She might have fared better on average than a man. There is no way to tell from her story.
It really is just a story, all sorts of other parameters could have affected the outcome. What sort of thing is she writing? Some subjects might be more readily associated with men, other with women.
The choice of names could have an effect in all sorts of ways, not only by signaling a gender.
Really, there is no substance here at all, I am sorry. If people want to get worked up about that story, it is because they want to get worked up about it, not because there is real substance.
For a better experiment, take the one with randomized CVs with randomized names, where black sounding names fared a lot worse than white sounding names. That is a proper experiment, because all other things besides the names were equal. This story here is not science. She herself is drawing a conclusion from her experience, but her subjective explanation doesn't really explain anything.