"Another way to say this is “If we rewarded women for acting just like men then why wouldn’t they all act just like men and thus eliminate any benefit to hiring

"Another way to say this is “If we rewarded women for acting just like men then why wouldn’t they all act just like men and thus eliminate any benefit to hiring women?”" The question then becomes why are there only two standards, one for men and one for women? Why not also have standards based on one's religion, weight, political views, shoe size, caffeine consumption, ethnicity, and favorite sports team? It's because we don't reward women for acting just like men. It's because we (sometimes) reward people for doing a good job. As a counter anecdote, consider Annie Edson Taylor, who was the first person to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Problem is, she was 63, and while she did it because she thought it would bring her "fame and fortune by selling memorabilia, group signings and giving talks" [Daily Mail], she wasn't what people wanted to see. Bobby Leach, second to go over the falls, succeeded in making money from his success. "Unlike Annie Taylor before him, Bobby Leach achieved some success from his endeavour. For several years he toured Canada, the United States and England, recounting his harrowing journey at vaudeville shows and lecture halls, exhibiting his barrel and posing for pictures." [Wikipedia]. I easily conclude that success in the lecture circuit is fickle, and not a good way to measure the significance of the underlying effort.