One of the most interesting things about this study to me is looking at all the bullshit excuses people come up with to justify the difference:
- "20 seconds isn't a big deal." Actually, it's about 20% longer.
- "It's because heterosexual male baristas want to look at the women for longer." Oh, well, that's all right then.
- "Women order more fancy drinks." Never mind that the study controlled for that.
- "They don't do it on purpose." Oh, well, that's all right then.
- "Women are more likely to complain, so the barista takes the time to get it right - this is really discrimination against men for getting an inferior product!" Um, yeah, sure. You want to conduct that study, feel free. (I'm still trying to reconcile this with the idea that the pay gap is due to women *not* complaining enough about their salaries.)
- "Well, *I've* never noticed it." Unless you get coffee both in and out of drag on a regular basis, I doubt you would. That's why we do studies.
- "The methodology isn't good enough. I don't know what it is, but it's not good enough." Unless there's something glaring, which I don't see, that's not really a valid criticism until you conduct a better study.
EDIT: Zuzu at Feministe has more here, making the same point about observation versus conclusion, only more elegantly.
EDIT #2: There's further discussion at Feministing, though most of that seems to be stuck in the "the study must be wrong, we just have to figure out why" stage.