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