[david-cako]

Do you think they are doing this because they want as few women as possible apply for the job, or because they want to maximize the effectiveness of their ad spending? I know which one I'm betting on.

If I'm a nursing school, I'm spending 90% of my marketing dollars on advertising to 18-35 women. Anything else is a calculated attempt at capturing a new market (possibly to fulfill demographic quotas), not arbitrary spending to make sure every demographic on the planet sees the ad.

[mixmastamyk]

The goals of a society and individuals sometimes conflict. It's true, perhaps an organization could become somewhat more productive practicing discrimination.

Personally, I prefer a more level playing field even if it is a bit more expensive. We're rich enough to afford it.

[david-cako]

You're 100% right, but a business exists first and foremost to make money. No business in their right mind whose customer base is 90% male is going to run an equal amount of ads on TLC as on ESPN. Why should jobs be different?

If I really want to be advertised products marketed to women, what do I do? Turn on TLC, or complain that ESPN isn't showing enough female-oriented ads?

Life isn't fair. Nothing is equal that isn't equal. We can do our best on an individual level but it's unreasonable to expect businesses to do anything more than treat applicants and employees of all demographics equally (which is an ongoing effort). Everything else is a statistic, and businesses will readily graze up against as many rules as possible. The checks and balances of this system is that when a business is caught blatantly discriminating, it turns into national news and they are punished financially.

The upside to this is that ethics and financial interests often align; businesses that are ethical have better public perception, and also attract better employees. Macrocosm and microcosm aligned.

If I wanted to go to nursing school as a male, I'm going to start researching, not wait for facebook to show me an ad.