I don’t want to overstate my feelings here. I can’t see any good of categorically stating any group of applicants would be a poor choice for a given position, given that all have sufficient background and interest.

But I don’t think the entitlement/union approach of ‘provide me with the amenities to compete with the single man,’ when the issue is about babies and families.

The woman has to compete with the *married* man. And how does a married man typically manage his family and personal support? By taking on a dependent, usually a wife, or other adult to help manage his private life. I don’t think that perspective has been argued or tried yet.

And this would have the additional advantage of shooting the crap out of one of the biggest drawbacks of the ‘glass ceiling’ debates. Today a woman with children is likely to be using child care in some fashion. Any time an employer participates in family support costs - should the salary of the affected employee be affected by that added cost?

Part of the disparity between women with dependents and single men is addressed by the cafeteria plan insurance and benefits packages. That is, each employee selects the coverages and plans most meaningful to their situation from those available, and contributes toward benefits above a baseline level.

And I am also serious about creating new workplaces with different emphasis than the work places currently available. For one thing, innovation and discovery are often much more likely in small organizations. For another, energy spend trying to change a company from a low level position is pretty thankless, usually. Most companies are very interested in appearing supportive, while actually acting traditionally businesslike. New companies and small companies often have greater latitude to consider other actions.