Women played a significant role in the development of experimental corrections programs like recreation and academic education in 19th century women's institutions. Yet women are largely excluded from the policymaking arena today. Policy changes, affirmative action, and litigation have all been unable to significantly change the negative attitudes toward women in corrections. Too often, through tokenism, women are placed in administrative posts without the necessary experience. If they do poorly, male officials assume they were not qualified in the first place. Some prisons will not hire women regardless of education or experience. Women are not denied jobs because they lack management experience, as some suggest. Women only lack experience in male institutions, not female, and women's corrections institutions are as difficult to manage as men's. Further, there are men in corrections who hold top level positions yet have no operations or management experience. Women are often held back because they have too much drive or are too assertive, not because they are incompetent. Moreover, women should not be hired in proportion to the number of female inmates in the population, as some suggest. There is an unending list of why women should be excluded or 'protected' from corrections work. To be capable and yet still rejected or held back brings about behavior that may then be pointed out as justification why women should not be hired or promoted. Attributes more common to women, such as flexibility and intuitive awareness, make women valuable in corrections. Five references are listed.