A few years ago, I was talking to a law school recruiter.  He said, "we
  are not hiring a young person".  I think he meant that the school was
  looking for experience.  Imprudent choice of word for a law prof I
  thought.  That twigged me to think that permissible discrimination on the
  basis of experience is usually essentially discrimination on the basis of
  age - and one of the many flaws with non-discrimination rules in theory
  and practice.
 
  As with my incident above, I read this Kenyon ad as a slip of the tongue
  (uncorrected by the image makers and internal discrimination police)
  which reflected exactly what they wanted.  Naive and illegal, but at
  least honest.  Does anyone think that they will not get the kind of
  "woman" they really want at the end of the process?  I suppose more women
  feminists might apply than otherwise would have been the case, and fewer
  (or no) men.  And we purists will buzz and wax indignant about this
  public faux pas to sanctify ourselves until we tire of it (but we will
  continue to see no limits to the efficacy of the law).  At the end of the
  day, would "person" instead of "woman" have made any practical
  difference?  Or have we scholars in the law desensitized ourselves to
  practical outcomes?  Are symbols always more important than results?
 
  The next time Kenyon will insert the "right" word and then hire exactly
  who it wants.  And that is where the real power is - not in the
  finger-pointing of the discrimination police.
 
  Peter Bowal
  University of Calgary