Comment Re:Yes, and it's even worse than that... (Score 1) 93
There ya go! Right to the misogyny claim. Most very respectfully, you need to stop using that as your initial attack.
It's not an attack - I'm just asking for evidence, specifically, that, to quote my earlier question, the "department specifically hired non-qualified women to work in your department, because they were women" and that there were better-qualified men who were not hired because they were men. That's the basis of your complaint, and without any evidence, it comes across as misogynistic. 1. It is definitely an attack - words have meaning, and your claiming that I hate women is not only untrue, it is ipso-facto an attack on my integrity.
I've worked in some very progressive and liberal places, but none of them had a quota for hires. Your office did? What was the quota?
Allow me to ask where I ever typed quota. If you need reminded of what I actually typed, it was "The goal was at least 50/50 mix" Goals are not quotas.
I don't have any idea how I can prove what the equity policy, was from that time, only it was a university environment, and there was a strong push to have a 50/50 mix. You can either believe or not believe, in which case you can just call me a liar who hates women as well. Who enforced it? And you know that there were well-qualified men who were turned down because they were men? I call BS.