In the end the net result of targeting only men is the same as refusing to hire women, it denies otherwise qualified women opportunities that they are deserving of.
That this has a cost is understood by those who wrote the law, they decided those costs are worth it.
It's one thing to target a gender in your advertisement. It's another to deny someone a job based on their gender.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
also:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/09/18/technology/ap-us...
>Targeting job ads by gender is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Imagine the job posting was in the men's toilet. The company would have a hard time arguing women had fair notice.
For sure. But you're not hiring a sex, you're hiring a person and individuals can match requirements for almost all types of position regardless of sex.
You know the job, you know what it entails and you know what works behaviorally and physically. There are differences between genders. That's okay.
I do think it's sexist to not hire a qualified women for the job because she's a women ( esp. in the garbage collector scenario). Like you hate women or something and you don't hire them ( funny story I heard a women on the sidewalk casually say she hated men. Never heard a man say that... ) The same for the flipside.
I do think it's a sexist double standard to say it's not okay to target men for a job and not mention anything about the flipside: it's okay to only target women.