[cercis]

Jesse, no reasons were given. I think one person tried to claim that they hired the most qualified person, but it's a small career field, and I had a pretty good idea about the men they were hiring.

Actually, I said the USDA Forest Service and I did mean them, but the most blatent was from the Oklahoma Forestry Service. Supposedly they've taken out the subjective measures and it's all based on scores on a test they give and a scoring system of your experience (years and relevancy) and college GPA. There were 3 positions open, the applicants were mostly from my class in college, so I knew their GPA's to the second decimal place. The test - we were given our ranking on that test. I knew the experience. I scored 2nd on that test. My GPA was the 2nd highest (one guy took 5 years in the 4 year program and made a 4.0) and my experience was comparable. 3 positions. Clearly I should have gotten one - right? I had 2nd highest test score, 2nd highest GPA and equal experience. But nope, no job. They hired all men. One was the 4.0 guy (intelligent but dumb as a post when it came to actually applying what he learned) and the other 2 had GPAs which were well below mine. Well below. All men. The state, at that time, had 2 women in the forestry service, both clerical positions.

With the forest service, it's a little more sneaky. Everyone is supposed to pay their dues by being a seasonal worker. But getting a degree is supposed to cut that time down signficantly. However, given half a chance (a guy who is only marginally less qualified than a woman) they will hire the man. There are limited permanent full-time positions that open up, so as a woman you end up applying for every opening for years, while putting in your time as a seasonal employee until finally you are significantly more qualified than anyone else. This generally takes about 15 years. Maybe less if you can make some political friends. More if you make the wrong friends.

There is a feeling, as expressed during our gender sensitivity training, that women have "issues". That once/month women need off for cramps. That we have babies and will need off for childbirth not to mention that will pg we will not be able to hike as much or work with tree-marking paint. When it was pointed out that none of the women there had ever taken off for cramps, well, that didn't change their minds. When it was pointed out that not every woman was planning to have a child, still didn't change their minds. Women over all, have "issues".