Plenty of places have no problem hiring (almost) only women, e.g. kindergarden, waitresses, art galleries, medical sociologists, stewardesses.
In any case I doubt this would be illegal in every legislation. In the US men are not a "protected group".
Where there is a will there is a (legal) way! I imagine that a company could legally load up with women to the max, compensate with differential hiring: e.g. only hiring female programmers, compensate with lower paid male drivers/cleaners. Or use outsourcing.
I'm sure if Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Pichai etc really belived that women are underpaid vis-a-vis their contribution, they could easily make it happen. Indeed, they are now so powerful they could get their army of lobbyists to change the law.
Action speaks louder than words.
Yes, there's plenty of kinds of jobs men don't apply for at nearly the rate women do. That's certainly not the case for programming jobs.
> In any case I doubnt this would be illegal in every legislation. In the US men are not a "protected group"
This is simply factually incorrect; in employment, sex—not just one sex—is a protected class, federally [0] and separately under most state laws, as well. About the only assymetric protected class in employment is age, where discrimination is only protected against when it is against those over 40.
There's plenty of kinds of jobs Women don't apply for at nearly the rate men do.
Yes, but that's not germane to the discussion.
...also not germane to the present discussion, though it perhaps is relevant to some post far uphtread or off to the side somewhere.
A company adopting a policy of hiring only women for technical positions is a bright line violation of federal (and, in California, also state) employment law. The fact a number of industries that aren't tech are nearly exclusively female (largely because of applicant patterns) does not change this. The fact that some industries are male dominated, in part for similar reasons, really has nothing at all do with this one way or the other. The nature of feminist argument patterns is even more completely irrelevant.
With a policy of hiring only women, or with being a field of mostly female solo operators without employees, with nearly 100% of applicants for places that do hire employees being female?
Because the two things aren't equivalent in the law.
I would imagine after rejection after rejection men would find something else (insurance was my friends out). It still amazes me how many industries insurance companies seem to influence the hiring in.
Because that's blatantly, bright-line illegal?