You need to think of this from the point of view of the women. How would you feel if someone put you up as a perk, based only on your gender? I would feel like meat.

Edit: I'm not saying this was intended. Maybe they were actually trying to appeal to women (or men) who didn't want to work in a "bro environment", as pessimizer put it. Lots of explanations but they need an actual apology for messing up so bad.

I would say that if they were trying to appeal to women, they shouldn't have counted them, and listed their place of birth, in lieu of you know... meritocratic qualities.

One job description contained this

> Young and dedicated colleagues

Now I am being put up as a perk because I am 24 only because of my age? And is that discrimination?

It's probably agist. At least adding "dedicated" is better than just saying "young." But what was the context? Was that just a description of the work environment, or was it in a list of perks?

> Was that just a description of the work environment, or was it in a list of perks?

Oh right, I see the difference now. It was of course a description of the work environment, and not a list of perks.

Not necessarily, but maybe the employer is subtly implying: "Old people don't need apply."

But if the employer wrote the job description with the intention of causing potential sexual arousal (e.g. if that perk is amongst free beers, chocolate and "frothy milk"), you are definitely objectified.