I agree that there's far too little information here - other than Ms Duncan's avowal - to know why she was paid at the bottom 10% of the payscale.  Since I have no information about her training, her years of experience, her aptitude, the statement is meaningless and I'm not sure it's enough to say it was because she is a woman.

I've known a number of women in academia, a good friend of mine was a professor for years at Queen's University, and while these women weren't pursuing administrative roles (they preferred to teach and research) I didn't hear a whole lot about them being discriminated against.

Hard sciences may be a bit different - partly because there are far fewer women going into it than men.  Women may just not be as commonly interested, and that's okay too.

In any event, the type of polarizing diatribe in this article doesn't auger well for those women who will now be hired to fill the quote a system.