The concept of fair hiring practices is a twentieth century invention; before then, it was common, even expected, for employers to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or anything else they desired. With the success of the civil rights and women's rights movements, this sort of discrimination has become taboo in western society, and has officially died out, though unsanctioned discrimination certainly exists. The idea behind fair hiring practices is nothing more than the idea of fairness, but since this idea holds little water in a capitalist economy, where fairness and equity is not as driving a force as economic health, proponents of fair hiring hold it up as being the concept of "the best man for the job." The best employee, they argue, may be a member of a minority, and it is folly not to hire someone because (s)he is a minority. Quite contrary to this argument is the fact, for it is a fact, that there are times that a minority will be less suited for the position than a white Protestant man precisely due to his or her minority status. The most obvious example, and the one that will be dealt with exclusively in this essay, is women. Indeed, in many instances, it is in the best economic interest of an employer to specifically not hire women precisely because they are different from the rest of his employees.
There are three particular reasons that women should not be hired, the first of which is due to a flaw in the male personality, rather than the female one. A man will not work as hard at his duty if there a woman nearby; he will devote some of his time and energy to gaining the woman's attention, or, in the vulgar sense, flirting. This is true of any situation I have observed. If either of the parties is married, the man will still put forth effort to get the woman's attention, and to convince her that, while he may be off limits, he would still make a fine partner.
