Sorry man, I appreciate your point but the general tone of your argument comes across like you think women are more of a 'risky' hire?
That said, I am sympathetic to the position that employers tend to unfairly overestimate that risk. And furthermore US law is very clear that discriminating against women based on that risk is illegal. (But, laws notwithstanding, I've seen it happen in practice. Both directly in my workplace, and indirectly in my wife's.)
I've seen employers tell my ex- that they were looking for someone to commit to multiple years, not just be fly-by-night. She agreed, and was laid off two months later due to 'change in business direction'.
It's the flip side of 'at will' employment. Unless a company is willing to put it in contract, I would recommend often showing little hesitation in not being more open about your future plans than you need to be.
If a company demands/expects loyalty, can you say that you expect they'll show the same loyalty when it's not working out for them? In the vast majority of cases (and it's not even necessarily malicious), absolutely not. You'll turn up one day, have a meeting with your manager, and, if you're (very) lucky, get some form of severance.
Quid pro quo.
I bet this one has a spot in top 10 most popular last thoughts.
But... touché.
People quit their jobs, frequently, for a wide variety of reasons. Women have a potential reason that men don't have. Cry me a river.
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.
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."
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.
Pondering http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html may be worthwhile.
That's one amazing piece of writing.
Women are different to men - culturally, biologically, etc et al. However any reference/inference/undertone to those differences as being 'risky' or 'negative' to business re-enforces negative stereotypes.
As the studies are showing, there's an opportunity cost to not achieving gender balance in business. That's the bottom line.
See http://www.siop.org/tip/jan11/12highhouse.aspx for arguments both ways. (The one that I just presented was the conventional view back when I was being educated about women's rights some 20 years ago.)
Sounds like we have the competitive advantage.
Then the people should make sure that such businesses are PUNISHED, and women are free to take time of for pregnancy.
The way to ruin a society is to stifle it's reproduction. As for the business risk, it should be an _assumed_ risk of all businesses if they want to operate within a society of people.