This is mostly unrelated to the main topic of the article, but this paragraph caught my eye: > For example, Padavic et al. [20] found that the "work-family" na

This is mostly unrelated to the main topic of the article, but this paragraph caught my eye: > For example, Padavic et al. [20] found that the "work-family" narrative in business is an example of a social defense: people will say that women leave the workplace because of "family", despite the large amount of evidence that women leave their jobs because of inadequate pay or opportunities for advancement [20], particularly when they see male co-workers promoted ahead of them. The "work-family" narrative is a more palatable explanation rather than to confront sexual discrimination in the workplace, and so the narrative continues. > > [20] I. Padavic and R. J. Ely. The work-family narrative as a social defense, 2013. I tried to track down the work by Padavic et al. that Patitsas et al. are citing, and found this: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/conferences/2013-w50-research-symposium/Documents/Gender_and_work_web_update2015.pdf http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/conferences/2013-w50-research-sym... However, this article by Padavic et al. is actually saying something different from the way that Patitsas et al. summarized it. Padavic et al. appear to actually be arguing that the work-family narrative is a social defense against the uncomfortable truth of excessively long working hours for both genders at the corporation, not against any uncomfortable truth about sexual discrimination. Also, Padavic et al. don't seem to discuss sexual discrimination in wages or promotions at all. Did Patitsas et al. make an error in citing their sources? Am I missing something?