This got me thinking:

"They tracked male and female MBAs graduating from the University of Chicago from 1990 to 2006. First they controlled for previous job experience, GPA, chosen profession, business-school course and job title. Right out of school, they found only a tiny differential in salary between men and women, which might be because of a little bit of lingering discrimination or because women are worse at negotiating starting salaries. "

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html

IMO the study seems to imply discrimination against men, not against women as Rosin thinks.

Think as an employer. Do I employ a young woman or man? A woman, because of biological imperatives, will make kids and stay home for months. A man will make kids, too, but won't stay home. Instead he'll work harder to provide for his family. (Yes, I'm generalizing.)

Now, as an employer you'd probably consider paying a lower salary to a female employee. But that's not the case according to the study. Young male and female MBAs get almost the same salary.

So, what's going on? Do employers view women more positively than men? Or is there something I missed?