The actual paper with charts and graphs for the coffee discrimination study is here: <link>

Caitlin Knowles Myers profile is here : <link>

I've the following comments:

1) At first glance 295 data points is statistically significant. However when we start to break it down by fancy/non-fancy drink, sex, sex of the server, race, etc, I'm less sure that this is true.

2) The author admits that at least part of the difference in wait time is due to women ordering "fancy" drinks, but claims even after adjustment women are still served slower. I'm not sure that all "fancy" drinks are equal.

3) An alternative hypothesis is that men don't fix fancy drinks well and/or men get flustered when dealing with women.

4) This is the type of study that should be done again, both because of comment #1 above and because of observer bias, i.e. it's possible we find what we're looking for.

But assuming the study is dead on the money... I'm not sure what we should be doing with it or learning from it. In this context, discrimination in my mind means "delibrately served poorly". It seems a reach to say this wait time is "delibrate". Does every man who takes a job at a coffee shop instantly aquire a contempt of women? What are we supposed to do with this information?

The perception that men are better tippers than women is hopefully beginning to change as the salary of women becomes more equitable to that of men. Of course, changes in these kinds of behaviors are glacier at best. That aside, there's a certain irony in the idea that men receive better service because they tip better----perhaps if women received better service, their tips would improve. And older women sitting alone may as well forget the idea of good service in many establishments. They are essentially invisible, particularly to male wait staff

Most of us have a mom (and if she's still alive, a somewhat older mom); Imagining her maltreated in any sense in the public arena is somewhat distressing. I might remind those operating in the service industries of this fact the next time they are waiting on a woman, especially an older woman. Sometimes, it's not always about the tip. It's about the person standing before you.

In the end, I suppose the bigger question is the issue of civility in world, regardless of any identifying criteria.

another useless study to keep females in the permanent victim status.....how boring....

I respectfully disagree that discrimination is deliberate -- I think the most dangerous forms of discrimination are inadvertent. Lots of people agree that overt racism or sexism is despicable, but it's the minutia of day-to-day interactions that are fraught with assumptions about people based on their religion, gender, orientation [pick a categorization] that then affect our behaviors, that add up to do more damage (in my humble opinion) than some a-hole who doesn't think women should vote, or work or speak their minds.

I've gotten in arguments with friends over this. I'm usually the devil's advocate, and think people are WAY too sensitive, but at the same tim, I think prejudice manifests itself in ways other than overt malicious intent.

That said, I do think the study is lacking. I'm not really convinced either. :)

well said Elizabeth from Brooklyn, as long as you realize women are guilty of the prejudicial minutae as well.

oh yeah -- the above statement applies to women judging men, men judging women, transsexuals judging the transgendered, pretty much everyone. Show me someone who's bias-less and I'll show you... my expression of disbelief, I guess!