In a randomized double-blind study(n=127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student — who was randomly assigned either a male or female name — for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary
and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant.
This. This sort of research is the smoking gun. Think about it: The same CV with the same qualifications was rated worse if they thought it was a woman. This isn't some "women don't push for raises" or "women don't apply for high paid jobs", this is outright (but subconscious) "women who are just as skilled as men, being viewed as worse".
If this was a conversation about whether a new drug worked, the conversation would be over.
OK, so that says the situation is bad within academic science. It still does not support the idea that women (in the tech industry) who negotiate are punished, it says that in academic research they are offered less.
In fact given that the article we're allegedly discussing is about how there is no pay gap in tech, there's reason to think that this sort of outcome may not apply across the board.
http://cst.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Science%20Faculty%27...