[columbo]

Regardless of if I agree with this statement (I don't) making a public statement like this is a very dangerous choice. You've effectively said "I wont hire women because they might go form babbies" on a public forum.

If you ever have or ever will turn down a woman for a position regardless of her abilities and this comment is found and tracked back to you that candidate (and any previous candidate you ever turned down) would have a pretty solid case against you and your company.

[btilly]

You've effectively said "I wont hire women because they might go form babbies" on a public forum.

That conclusion can only be drawn by people who perform simplistic keyword matching and fail to comprehend what I've actually said.

Did you notice that I've also pointed out several times that there is some evidence that companies who are more willing to hire women are likely to financially perform better? And that I've also pointed out repeatedly that discriminating on the basis of gender (either way) is illegal?

There is a pretty big gulf between saying, "Here is the standard argument for discrimination" and saying "I advocate discrimination" or even "I would personally discriminate."

[columbo]

> That conclusion can only be drawn by people who perform simplistic keyword matching and fail to comprehend what I've actually said.

Sure, I could have misread everything you've posted but imagine the lawyer for a potential failed hire reading your posts and slicing out exact paragraphs of your own wording:

> given biology and current culture, women of child-bearing age clearly are riskier hires

> Women have non-trivial odds of getting pregnant, sometimes unexpectedly

> In the event of pregnancy, moms usually require more time off than fathers, and are more likely to never return to their jobs.

> I personally have seen a couple of situations where a black person had credentials only because of affirmative action and did not deserve those credentials.

> I've also have seen multiple cases where a woman gets hired, gets pregnant, and then you lose that employee in a painful way.

> I have never witnessed anything involving a white person that was anywhere near being similarly egregious.

> white people were not given anywhere near as much leniency.

> Can you really blame an employer for leaning towards being risk adverse in this situation?

Call me full of shit. Say I'm blowing all this out of context. Whatever you want... but realize that those quotes are pretty deadly rounds of ammo to a lawyer. Don't believe me? Forward them to your HR department and see what they think.

[btilly]

I don't deny that a lawyer could try to make hay out of those out of context. But every one of those quotes are statements of provable fact. That's the problem when you try to bring nuance to an emotionally charged issue. You wind up saying things that cause people to have a knee-jerk response, and their brains turn off.

Pondering http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html may be worthwhile.

[burntsushi]

I would just like to thank you very much for sharing that link. It was an amazing read. I found so many of the points made in that article things that I already practice, but I had never dreamed they could all be tied together in one cohesive whole like that.

That's one amazing piece of writing.