The thing that leaps off of the screen when I read these stories is the talk of 'women's equality'. This phrase doesn't make any sense; women are not identical to men, so when there is talk of 'women's equality' what is the standard reference that they are being equated to? Is it a man? No woman is a one for one replacement for a man; men and women have many abilities that overlap, and in some areas, women are superior to men, but women are different to men on many levels. There is nothing wrong with accepting this, since it is the plain truth, and quite natural. I should not have to insert a disclaimer here that women can run any business or large operation or nation that a man can. There are enough examples in history right up to today of this happening for me to have to say this.

Women should be retained by a company if it is good for business. If it is not, then they should not. Or not. How an entrepreneur decides to run his affairs is her own business, and not the business of the State or anyone, save perhaps the shareholders if there are any. The objectives of a business are laid down by the owners of it. If those objectives are pure profit, then that is also their affair, and they should aim for that. If the purpose is to be a 'good member of the community' that to is entirely up to them. There is no one size fits all definition of purpose or set of goals for companies, and anyone who tries to impose one is violent by definition.

I know for certain that if I were running a business I would hire only on the candidate's ability to perform and the compatibility of their personality and philosophy. If they were a good worker, I would support them if they decided to have a baby. This might not make good economic or business sense, but it is friendly, and in my view, being friendly and loyal is extremely important, and should always be done if it is not fatal to the business. That is my view, and others are entitled to theirs and are free to act on their beliefs when it comes to their property.

For me there is no 'problem with society'. Society works fine just as it is out of the box. The problems everyone suffers come from the State, and the small number of anti-human people who run it, who impose their odd ideas on everyone by force. The State and society are two different, separate and opposing forces; its important to understand this distinction.

Computer programming and stock trading are a perfect examples of two trades where the sex of the worker is irrelevant. If the code compiles and fits the specification, that is all that matters. If the stock trades make a profit, the sex of the trader is irrelevant. Google has no reason to reject women simply because they are women; it has nothing to do with the quality of code that is produced, which can be measured objectively.

Finally, if people like the hiring practices of a company, they should support it by using its products and buying shares in it. This sort of pressure is many times stronger than any edict handed down by a feminist legislator. If all the people who cared deeply about who was writing their software or newspaper stories or running their supermarkets, and actively shunned companies that did not act in accordance to their philosophy, these 'problems' would be very quickly ended.

The fundamental flaw I was referring to is the contradiction. That society (the aggregate expectations) is that companies are viewed as flawed if they don't have a 50/50 split. That women are viewed as flawed if they don't want to return to work. Yet, Women's Liberation movements were fighting for choice.

The contradiction is the societal expectation that women have a choice to work, or be viewed as flawed. A contradiction that demonstrates to me that Women's Liberation Movement as a group either failed, or was a sham to begin with (I lean towards sham, just like every other politically motivated group).