> it seems that your stance is because I've made hiring mistakes (even if they are subsequently and promptly corrected) that I should have no credibility to com

> it seems that your stance is because I've made hiring mistakes (even if they are subsequently and promptly corrected) that I should have no credibility to comment on this blogger's hiring process of banning women Not at all. I've certainly made significant hiring mistakes and yet I have all sorts of opinions on hiring process. I'm only saying it seems like you would be less inclined to believe the fault must all be hers if your hiring process (which I'm assuming you put real energy into optimizing) also ends up giving you actual criminals sometimes. I'm not criticizing your criticism of her ban; I'm criticizing your diagnosis of hiring as the source issue. I don't doubt that it's in at least some part her fault and I completely understand the impulse to write it all off as that (for example, it also does not jive at all with my experiences in working with women, who have always been super professional towards me), but it's hard to see how one could really come to that conclusions about her hiring process without knowing her, the nature of her business, how she treats women, the pool of candidates she has available, and--possibly most importantly--almost anything about her hiring process. Maybe she's an idiot, maybe she had bad luck, maybe she has jobs for which women, for unspecified reasons, aren't well suited for, maybe she has a terrible work environment, maybe her male hires are weird in a way that skews her view of things, or maybe she's even right, or whatever. I just don't see how you can conclude much about hiring practice from "Wow, I've had really bad female employees." I should also be clear that I'm not defending her decision to no longer hire women. That's also a poor conclusion to make from her observations. If the overall point here is, "she should be thinking harder about how to create an environment in which women can thrive", then I agree. Edit: it occurs to me that I may have misunderstood "I think this anonymous blogger should evaluate her hiring practices." I was taking that to mean, "you've ended up with bad women because you suck at hiring, and if you fix that, you'll have good female employees" But rereading your responses, it sounds like you might have just been saying, "you shouldn't be adding this ban on hiring women". If so, then probably this whole discussion has been a frustrating miscommunication.