I think that's because the article/study doesn't provide alot of information and only reaffirms the previous study outcomes. "There was no evidence of discrimi

I think that's because the article/study doesn't provide alot of information and only reaffirms the previous study outcomes. "There was no evidence of discrimination against women in male-dominated professions or in mixed-gender professions, but the researchers did find evidence of discrimination against men in female-dominated professions." "female applicants had a 52.17 percent relative advantage" "This study only captures discrimination at the initial stages of the hiring process at entry level jobs in Sweden" >no one has yet offered the hypothesis that the purported discrimination against men could be explained by men being objectively less suitable to work in female-dominated professions than women. Perhaps men have less "emotional iq" than women or something? No such thing could have happened even if that's the case, from the study: "the group belonging of the fictitious applicants is experimentally manipulated, most commonly by randomizing the applicant’s name." "Correspondence tests can naturally only measure discrimination at the initial stage of the hiring process and may understate the true extent of hiring discrimination if it occurs at later stages of the process."