[pacala]

Never heard of an open and blatant 'women need not apply' in the 20 years I've been in the US. Not in the universities, not in the workplace, not anywhere. Not sure about NFL policies, though there aren't that many 6 foot 250 pounds fit women out there. Pretty sure there is no VC advertising 'we will fund no women' out there, if it were there would be a huge press coverage.

And yet, the OP is openly and blatant 'men need not apply'. How is that ever OK?

[commandlinefan]

> an open and blatant 'women need not apply'

If anything, it's been the other way around for at least as long as I've been alive.

[jpindar]

The NFL does allow women to apply, and one has tried, though that appeared to be just a publicity stunt.

There are a few women who play college football, and they are eligible to apply in the more traditional manner. With college experience and professional coaching it's not completely impossible that they could make it, probably as kickers or punters, who don't need as much upper body strength as other positions.

[jakelazaroff]

My point is, blatantly saying "X need not apply" isn't any worse than saying "this opportunity is open to both X and Y" and then only accepting Y. Implicit discrimination isn't somehow better than explicit.

[pacala]

If I read this correctly, what you're saying is:

* Implicit discrimination is bad. I'm saying: To use that as a guide for your actions you need to have an implicit discrimination detector able to account for all the confounding variables.

* Explicit discrimination is also bad. I'm saying: As a corollary, there should not be explicit 'X need not apply' policies.

* Two wrongs make a right.

[lallysingh]

Because men have many other options. If it was just 1 or 2 places saying 'we won't fund women', then those places don't substantially affect womens' ability to get funded. But that isn't the case.