Your (or anyone's) conclusions that men are "higher quality" employees simply because they are less likely to go on paternal leave or switch to part-time becaus

Your (or anyone's) conclusions that men are "higher quality" employees simply because they are less likely to go on paternal leave or switch to part-time because of stress are spurious at best. There are many factors that go into determining the quality of an employee and these narrow observations are far from conclusive. For instance, who's to say that men don't simply become far-less productive in response to stress? And, the link you provided does nothing to support your conclusions that such discrimination is "efficient". It draws no conclusions in either direction and, in fact, merely states that such discrimination exists. I think we know that. Do you have any citations that show a positive correlation between discrimination and the quality of employees? Because, otherwise--given the article to which you are responding--you seem to be propagating the idea that such discriminatory "signalling" is superior to credentials, experience, and other achievements when determining the quality of an employee. In fact, you seem to be endorsing what the author experienced as "efficient" and therefore beneficial from an economic perspective.