[nostrebored]

Then you really don't understand hiring women. Most women don't want to work at a place where they're the only woman. Or the workplace is ridiculously imbalanced in one direction. Even in large companies such as Amazon, women cluster into teams.

Not having women on your team usually points to a culture issue, and who wants to have a terrible work environment? It's another area where avoiding false positives is probably going to be better for you in the long run.

For instance, my wife moved to a new team that is 50℅ women, from a team where she was the only woman engineer. Her co-workers really didn't know how to interact with women. Complaining to HR would cause the team to assume it was her. When a co-worker did complain to HR, a large section of her team assumed it was her and made the workplace even less hospitable.

Plus from a business perspective if you can open your business to a pool of talent that isn't well catered to, you'll probably reap some long term benefit.

[flukus]

> Most women don't want to work at a place where they're the only woman.

That's a problem women can solve, not one that has to be solved for them.

> Her co-workers really didn't know how to interact with women

Examples? You react to them the same way as everyone else.

[ta119a08]

I think I'm on the same side as you, but the right approach to establishing a diverse balance isn't to have litmus tests for individual jobs.

If you want to shift the balance.

1. Start by mixing up your recruitment marketing and messaging to make them more appealing to your target demographic.

2. Then, consider any necessary policy changes to the workplace and culture that would turn away candidates who get a closer look.

3. Lastly, consider using your diversity preference as a tie-breaker among otherwise comparable candidates.

No illegal litmus tests necessary.