Slashdot Mirror
California May Become First State To Require Companies To Have Women On Their Boards (techcrunch.com)
Two female state senators from California are spearheading a bill to require companies to have women on their boards. "SB 826, which won Senate approval with only Democratic votes and has until the end of August to clear the Assembly, would require publicly held companies headquartered in California to have at least one woman on their boards of directors by end of next year," reports TechCrunch. "By 2021, companies with boards of five directors must have at least two women, and companies with six-member boards must have at least three women. Firms failing to comply would face a fine." From the report: "Gender diversity brings a variety of perspectives to the table that can help foster new and innovative ideas," said Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, who is sponsoring the bill with Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins of San Diego. "It's not only the right thing to do, it's good for a company's bottom line."
Yet critics of the bill say it violates the federal and state constitutions. Business associations say the rule would require companies to discriminate against men wanting to serve on boards, as well as conflict with corporate law that says the internal affairs of a corporation should be governed by the state law in which it is incorporated. This bill would apply to companies headquartered in California. [A] legislative analysis of the bill cautioned that it could get challenged on equal protection grounds, and that it would be difficult to defend, requiring the state to prove a compelling government interest in such a quota system for a private corporation.
Yet critics of the bill say it violates the federal and state constitutions. Business associations say the rule would require companies to discriminate against men wanting to serve on boards, as well as conflict with corporate law that says the internal affairs of a corporation should be governed by the state law in which it is incorporated. This bill would apply to companies headquartered in California. [A] legislative analysis of the bill cautioned that it could get challenged on equal protection grounds, and that it would be difficult to defend, requiring the state to prove a compelling government interest in such a quota system for a private corporation.
May I suggest .....
Have gnu, will travel.
Yea Forcing Diversity in to things at the expense of people that could be more qualified has never been a bad idea.
What about companies with all female board of directors? Will they be forced to have males on board or does equality only matter when you have a vagina?
I'm confused. I thought California had officially settled on 1,000's of genders. Is this not discriminatory to Neutois demi-boys? Or woodsprite pansexuals? I mean, I understand there is a need to keep out Apache Attack Helicopters but we need balance here!
Wait a minute. I'm Hispanic. Where is the law that requires companies to have at least one Hispanic on their board? Why does the California legislature hate me?
It's about the intersectional thing now. A woman? Why not a black muslim woman? Or better yet someone who is transgender or gender fluid? That law is so behind the times. You have to be a member of a grievance group to get attention.
Sadly - this identity politics thing is fueling the rise of white nationalism. Which is another identity ground centered around grievance as well. Strangely - many far left and far right groups are in solidarity on socialism. Weird.
There's a lot of intentionally provocative/trollish bills california congress - which actually have weak effects, and are mostly pushing for industries to self-regulate, and are NOT actually expected to pass, but reach compromise.
You know, all the stuff that some folks compliment Trump on pushing as genius strategic moves.
More importantly, which a lot of these summaries (and this article) seem to gloss over - this is only for the California senate - not the US senate.
None of these things are positions asked for by Democrats in general, or even these Democrats, except as a starting point of negotiation.
Ryan Fenton
Just think of how many TRAP laws have been blocked, challenged and overturned, let alone the ones that have resulted in the closure of medical clinics.
Still, I would suggest the French method of influencing the legislature first.
Current stats of US Congress is about 20% female, and close to 25% in state legislatures.
Given that both Congress and state legislatures are grossly unrepresentative, it would be easy to argue for significant reforms including members for each gender.
I thought we were working to make everyone treated the same?
Now, women need preference quotas to fill chairs.
Got it. I'm SURE that will give them the respect they precisely deserve.
-Styopa
So anyone looking for someone talented for the position to fit your specific company now has half of the amount of talent to choose from and perhaps much less if their field is a male dominated field. How is this even being considered?
I'm all for states regulating companies that do business within them. I mean, I get that all of Silicon Valley decided to incorporate in Delaware, but they live in California. Let California regulate them.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
If you're going to force companies to hire certain people, why not just force them to hire everyone in the state? That'll wipe out unemployment in one swope. Forget that. Hire everyone in the world! Damn, I'm a genius.
Oh, that old thing? What's all that talk about "equal protection clause"?
With this type of reasoning, there will soon be NFL teams with women in wheelchairs as linemen.
Typically bard members are all of similar socioeconomic backgrounds.
They're all either very wealthy or politically powerful.
Why not force companies to have a certain number of members from different financial, ethnic or religious backgrounds?
Just making them choose more women for their board is offensive to pretty much everyone.
The best place to start enacting policies like this would of course be California government hires and candidates for election.
James Damore got in trouble, because his memo said that women don't think the same way that men do.
But Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson says, "Gender diversity brings a variety of perspectives to the table that can help foster new and innovative ideas."
So do women think differently from men, only when this difference should make you want to hire women?
As if conservatards needed one more reason to let california burn.
The civil war never ended. People just stopped killing each other. To a conservatard, death is only a tragedy when it's an english-speaking straight white christian conservative who dies. Every other death is a cause for celebration.
Eat me
So the 2nd bloke can wear a dress and then it will all be ok 'cause then there would be 1.5 women. Ok, got it.
If this measure passes, companies will turn their boards into puppet governance, and move their real governance down the line. There will be strong representation of women, but these new boards will find themselves having little to no actual strategic engagement.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Does size matter? Does 2 skinny short dudes count as only 1 woman?
But this form of implementation is just reverse sexism.
Don't believe me? Try arguing that the toilet seat should be left up in a gender diverse house and see what happens.
"I have a vagina, give me stuff!"
Watch companies pack up and leave for Texas.
Considering the direction of liberal politics, soon anybody can chose to be anything and it will be protected by law. Then men can basically just decide to be women to get a bunch of benefits and women will lose even the little identity they still have left. Go identity politics!
If it is self-identified women, then we are already compliant. Just have Bob fill the form.
I'd like men to live as long as women, and to have a suicide rate that's equally low. Can we get more funding for research (and subsidized medical care) to level the playing field? And how about criminal justice interventions which stop our prisons from being full of men?
Equality is great, unless it's applied unevenly. And frankly, I will worry about boards of directors after I worry about healthcare and unequal application of justice.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Aside from just disagreeing in general with a policy of judging people by their group identity it seems like a great way to chase companies right out of California.; and obviously just get two male board members to change their gender identity to female, doesn't even require a physical transformation anymore.
I am starting a company that supplies randomly sourced women hookers for board seats. Great hourly rates plus many of those women might end up being smarter than the rest of the board.
The bill contains this little nugget in the footnotes:
" “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth."
I was already hoping the bill would pass because of the silliness of it, but with the above it's gonna be comedy gold.
Reference article for Equilar Gender Diversity Index
women on Russell 3000 boards increased in Q1 2018 from 16.5% to 16.9%
Considering that women are, what 50% of the population, I find it hard to believe that woman are not being discriminated in one way or another
Russell 3000 companies with all-male boards dipped below 20% for the first time(19.5%)
Notice we are not talking about corporate boards made entirely of women here, 19.5% male only boards are nothing to be proud about.
Some observers have also suggested the focus on gender diversity has marginalized racial and ethnic groups who are also far underrepresented on boards. At the recent Equilar Board Leadership Forum, co-hosted with Nasdaq, one panelist commented that African American and Hispanic professionals often feel like they are being left out of the conversation.
It is not only women whom are left out of the board room, but race should also be a part of the discussion. cxO and boards are basically good old boy clubs, this should be not surprising. You mention "equal protection clause" they are applying that to protect women because they have been discriminated against fairly clearly. The legislation may appear ham-fisted but businesses don't really seem to be involved in addressing discriminatory practices. Government is there is do what is good for everyone.
"Let's open today's board meeting. First -- who will identify as a women for the duration of the meeting? Thanks, John.. err, Jessica, sure."
Not if she's a big black whale, then it may be anywhere from 3 to 11.
Like the old adage goes - Democrat Ideas: So great that they have to be enforced.
I'm almost at the point of registering a company with some friends. This information is good to know.
Lol, California. We're just here for the weather!
Thanks Slashdot!
I will identify as a woman for money. Unfortunately, every company I've worked for was too smart to try to make up the "gender gap" by simply giving all women a pay rise.
Unfortunately, if the government forced their hand, I'm willing to do what it takes for a cush job.
It is pretty easy to move the corporate headquarters to another state. That happened in a company I worked for. Got a new CEO who liked his home state more than where most of the company was physically located. So, he visited a few days a month but simply moved the corporate headquarters to his home state. Watch as huge numbers of corporations decide that corporate headquarters should be in a place other than California.
The best part of the social justice Marxists is it's highly amusing watch their ruleset hijacked for comedy and ridicule.
this is a terrible idea. It'll energize the right wing in the State giving them plenty of legitimate talking points/grievances. It's obviously unconstitutional discrimination so it'll get shot down in court wasting a ton of money too.
On the plus side stuff like this is very popular with a certain kind of Democrat. To whit: right wing "corporate" Democrats who need something to throw to the base besides economic issues. This let's them run in left wing districts while opposing stuff like single payer healthcare, college for all, ending the 8 wars we're in, The New New Deal etc, etc. It's the Democrat equivalent to Dog Whistling and just as despicable.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The more we try to make everyone equal, the more obvious it becomes that equality is one of the stupidest ideas mankind ever had.
For those who recall Better Off Ted, there will just not be enough parking to hire all the racial groups that inclusion would requires. :)
https://vimeo.com/29017688
Skip to 3:05.
Nothing like serving under a woman? :)
Aww c'mon. Everyone was thinking it.
Does she require a womb or would a self identified women meet the law ? Maybe a gender X requirement should be included as well. I'm all for equal opportunity but this is going too far. If you can't prove discrimination then the government should keep its' fsck'n nose out of it.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The very concept that you must chose a person not based on their qualification but due to their gender to fill some for of quota is extremely sexist and disgusting!
It totally worked for racial integration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing. I was one of those kids that got bussed, for a short period before we moved to the burbs.
I guess these feminist senators just want to drive public companies out of California.
REALSEXISM.COM
I just did a search on the gender makeup of the California legislature, and I find only one woman for every four men. I demand gender equality within the California legislature! How dare they make such demands on corporations within their state without first making this demand upon themselves!
Here's an idea, maybe this just might work. Let's let the people of California choose who they wish to represent them in the legislature AND let corporations choose who they wish to be on their executive boards. I know, that's just crazy talk. I'm thinking it might just work out for the best though.
Here's another idea, California can pass this law and they have it get shredded to pieces in the courts. This is a step too far, it violates so many levels that make up freedom of choice and equal protection under the law.
Here's some other "equality" laws that California should consider. I believe that there are too many Democrats in the legislature, we should have a law that all political parties need to be represented equally. Let's also have racial equality in the legislature. We should also work on equality of time served in the legislature. If this "equality" is good for business then it is good for government, no?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The board of directors of a public company are elected by the shareholders. So how can a company ensure that the stockholders will elect a board which contains at least one woman? I recognize that in most cases, board members are recommended by the company itself and stockholder almost always vote in favor of the company's choices, but still....
"It's not only the right thing to do, it's good for a company's bottom line."
If it were truly that good for a company's bottom line, you wouldn't need to pass a law to mandate it - companies would do it naturally.
It's only fair that people who drive below the speed limit be fined just like people who drive above it? Depends on what are laws setting speed limits are trying to accomplish.
Nope, requiring males means that women would be turned-down just because they are women.
... when the very point of this legislation is to address the problem that women are getting turned down just because they are women. If ever male board members become the rare exception, we might need to flip the legislation.
Since typically most generations revolt against those prior to their own, I can't wait to see when Gen Z comes of age, i suspect there is going to be a huge backlash against the SJWism of the millennial generation, I can already see it starting among older generations outside of the millennial generation. Hence why we get things like MAGA and Trump, it's the start of the backlash of people fed up with this SJW bullcrap.
The millennials think they are of some sort of majority, but all they can do is kick scream cry name call and lash out on social media when they can't get their own way. And want election laws changed to be the popular vote instead of the tried and true electoral college when the vote doesn't go there way, but they had no problem when the shoe was on the other foot and Obama won the electoral college, but lost the popular vote.
The more and more i see of the millennial generation throwing their temper tantrum against Trump, the more and more I am beginning to side with him even though i hated both Hillary and Trump during the elections.
I'm quite frankly getting sick of seeing the whining now two years post election, guess what instead of whining why not try and get yourself an actual good candidate that people will vote for? Cause if Hillary makes a run again, I can guarantee Trump will be president for another 4 year term.
law suite incoming in...3...2...1...
Seriously you can't force this because it's not going to end well. Companies should be free to hire the right candidates for the job without regard of color, religion, sex, cat count and political views.
There are fewer women on boards not becuse women are less intelligent but because there are fewer of them at the top of corporations , fewer of them with the depth of experience which would actually br beneficial to a company. The reason for that is not discrimination, it's that women overwhelmingly make different life choices than the men who fight their way to the top of these companies. It's perfectly clear ftom the internationsl data thst this is their vhoice. That is their right.
There are women who are accomplished and sit on boards , run companies etc., just a lot fewer.
What gets me is when women encounter the real level of competetive viciousness inside companies, they think they're being targeted because they're women. Wrong. They do the exact same thing to men, it's just that men eat it.
Women are smarter in a certain way. They see how bad it is and decide it's not worth it earlier than men do. They preserve more of their vital years for thing that matter than men do. This has to be counted as a form of intelligence.
Ihave a friend who works at a hospital. She watches high powered men die all the time. They almost all regret how they dpent their lives.
I would not want to have accomplished what Steve Jobs accomplished if it came with the price tag of being the person we now know Steve Jobs to have been.
You buy things with the hours of your life. Some peopel, men mostly, buy command psoitions in corporations and all that goes with that. That is their due. You can't just hand it out to people who didn't earn it.
Is it only the last 4 years they have been acting so PC, SJW and downright strange?
Tired of this shit. They want my vote? Stop it with the insanity and 'democratic socialism' (Venezuela mk2). Stop it with the 'white people bad' (i'm brown) it helps nothing. 'America was never great?' , kiss my a*s.
You get what you vote for
Explain the explosion of corporate socialism
By "corporate socialism," you must mean corporations who share every last cent of profit with the workers on the shop floor? Because otherwise that cliche is an obvious contradiction in terms which soon looses its facility as an oxymoron. Socialism means precisely that the means of production are held in public (not in company) hands, for the benefit of those who work with them. The word describing all the items you list, is 'capitalism' (crony- becoming, over time, tautologous).
The bill contains this little nugget in the footnotes:
" “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth."
I was already hoping the bill would pass because of the silliness of it, but with the above it's gonna be comedy gold.
I knew politics got dirty, but chop-your-dick-off dirty? Fucking hell.
No wonder Trump won.
Also, anyone who doesn't support pansexual teachers in kindergartens and gender fluid / cross-dressing training to primary-school children is literally Hitler.
Even if they have offices there. The "headquarters" may be de-jure a mail drop in Delaware, even though the main offices are de-facto in Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco or Sacramento. Did the law define what exactly is meant by "headquarters" in this case? Even if the mail drop doesn't pass muster, it's still possible to have the headquarters somewhere else, Nevada or Texas say, with executives living full time in California and commuting back and forth as a group by private business jet. This is not unheard of. For example, the CEO of Zillow, Spencer Rascoff, lives in a Los Angeles mansion and commutes back and forth to Seattle by private business jet. There are also lawyers at San Francisco law firms with similar arrangements that allow them to work in SF while living elsewhere in the American south west, especially in Texas. It's also possible that some companies might re-organize such that the tech and R&D stays in California while executive control and strategic planning move elsewhere to friendlier business climates. Like most laws passed in California, this seems to be more for appearances than actual effect, but it will probably end up costing ordinary Californians never the less.
If they were better qualified than the available men, then they would already be appointed to the boards without needing any legislation. Companies are not going to appoint less qualified people unless they're forced to (eg by legislation like this)...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
There are fewer women on boards not becuse women are less intelligent but because there are fewer of them at the top of corporations
If that is the reason then it is an obvious case where positive discrimination could temporarily be applied to break the vicious cycle. Corporations should, for a decade or two, be forced to employ more women at
The reason for that is not discrimination, it's that women overwhelmingly make different life choices
Yup, for instance in Japan women make the life choice not to become medical doctors.. And when we do experiments sending in identical CVs, but for a male/female first name, to job advertisements, and the male named applications overwhelmingly get offered interviews ... that the life choices women make too, yeah? Sorry mate, that's not only bullshit, it's obvious bullshit. You are fooling yourself (perhaps successfully).
What gets me is when women encounter the real level of competetive [sic] viciousness inside companies, they think they're being targeted because they're women. Wrong.
No, because no woman has ever been attacked in a highly highly gendered fashion, called "bitches" when aggressive (though less than their "go-get-it" male counterparts), accused of sleeping around, or of being pre-menstrual, etc, etc, etc. You're livin in fucken dreamland matey.
Women are smarter in a certain way. They see how bad it is and decide it's not worth it earlier than men do....
Oh FFS, get your hand off it man!
Once upon a time, a gentleman by the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream...a dream that his "four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Many Americans have sacrificed, suffered, fought, bled, and even died in the fight for civil rights and - for genuine equality - to be extended to Americans, regardless of sex, skin color, national origin, disability, age, and other protected characteristics. Genuine equality means that each and every one of is judged "by the content of [our] characters" and not by our physical characteristics. Genuine equality means that it's the same standard for all, regardless of physical characteristics. That's not to say that certain groups who endure the legacy of past wrongs don't deserve some help, but lowering the bar just for them is not the right kind of help...it's just committing another wrong in the misguided attempt to correct a past wrong.
Unfortunately, today's "progressives" - including the folks in California - don't understand what genuine equality means. Nor do they understand what "bigotry" (intolerance) means - and their intolerance of people who believe differently from themselves is quite obvious.
as expected you misquoted me via ellipsis, cherry picked a recent news item to deflect from decades of substantive academically rigorous studies and then dismissed the most humanly relevant part of my post.
Feminists are just people with personality disorders they've politicized.
So do they hire a Chief Executive Woman, or do they just get the low man on the totem pole to fill out whatever legal paperwork CA will require to self-identify female? Can/must he claim Woman as a position held in the company?
So she can get her ass back in the kitchen and cut me a sammich!
Fuck forced diversity.
Gesetze sind wie Würste, man sollte besser nicht dabei sein, wenn sie gemacht werden
--Bismarck
If they were better qualified than the available men, then they would already be appointed to the boards without needing any legislation.
Riiiiiiiight!
Companies are not going to appoint less qualified people unless they're forced to ...
What are you talking about? They clearly do!
Nor is this just a male/female thing either, among others, it's famously a "what school did you go to" thing as well. Maybe for the crucial technical jobs qualification win, but companies are full of humans making decision on a very human basis: first and foremost they decide in favour of "people-like-us". You cannot seriously believe that the better qualified guy has never lost out on a job to the better connected guy. (It's not what you know ...)
Plus we are talking company boards here. How do you spell sinecure?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
It's the Democratic party. Their last nominee for President was a member of the Walmart board of directors, who helped crush the unions. That is what they stand for.
Principles of limits on governmental power and freedom of association.
A mandate to hire a woman instead of the best candidate available and willing is the best thing you can do if you wish to dismantle the US.
How about trans people, lesbians or gays? How about POCs? Or those boards where women are a majority, will they be forced to get more men? This kind of bs legislature is just that, bs. WIll those who are promoting this also make sure to make more women homeless? Or try to even out the score on suicide or work related deaths? Or making women serve the same sentences in prison, for the same crimes?
No? I guess they are just about skimming the top then. Don't let them fool you to think that this is about equality, because this will affect close to zero percent of women. It will not affect the average woman, it will only affect the already over privileged and rich women, who already are miles ahead when it comes to power and earnings, compared to the average woman.
Regardless of gender, or race or anything else, why would a company want anything but the best people for the job?
If you are going in for surgery, or just having your car serviced, do you want a person who was a great student, perhaps with honors and is a leader in their field, or a person who barely got by and has the job because they filled a box on a form? I want the best, or at least a very good one. I don't want the "good enough" one... I want a trained chef or cook making my food, not an idiot who gets raw chicken juice in the salad vegetables... In these three examples, the lesser person could kill you.
Being on a board does not require any qualifications.
It requires connections!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And the ability to make and maintain connections is the most important qualification of a business leader.
No, that is 19th century european fetish :) The proletariat will prevail comrades!
There are fewer women on boards not becuse women are less intelligent
It may well be that at the tail end of the bell-curve, there are fewer women than men. There are very few females in the top ranks of genius.
But you don't need an IQ of 180 to be a board member. In the desired IQ range for boards, women may only be slightly outnumbered.
The real difference is in the different choices the genders make.
Women do not like confrontation, or long hours. Neither do I. Neither do most men. The rare few people who have the combination of drive, ruthless ambition and ability to get to the top are mostly men.
Who knows? Setting quotas for women might actually help. But why stop there? A company could assess the aptitude, experience and performance of its employees, and then randomly select senior management and board from the top 5% or whatever. This would bring genuine diversity, not some PC tokenism, and reduce cronyism. It would be an interesting experiment.
And the job requirement includes personally testing their product.
I'm sure the first women given positions as a result of this bill will feel very proud when they are hired for their gender and nothing else. (not disputing that in some cases they hay have been ignored for the board due to being women)
It just reminds me of some article on Maddox's site years ago that said something like: "Remember, true diversity is brought about by people that look different."
Yet another reason not to incorporate in California.
SCOTUS is not going to allow that to happen; it violates equal protection in fundamental ways. And such mandates should offend anybody with an ounce of decency and commitment to classical liberal values.
1) There are very few females in the top ranks of genius
2) It may well be that at the tail end of the bell-curve, there are fewer women than men.
2 does not necessarily follow from 1. My daughter lives towards the top end of the curve. Getting her TESTED only happened because we noticed issues she was having, and had the resources to privately test her (it costed about 4k$ by the time it was all said and done). The school didn't notice because she was a B student, they don't pay much attention to quiet, geeky, autistic girls who are scoring OK in school.
So I submit that the reality may not be a discrepancy in the number of females in the 99.99+ percentile range, but rather the number of females in the 99.99+ percentile range that are tested.
Our school district has since instituted 100% screening for gifted children, recognizing this and other statistical dependencies, and it'll be interesting to see how the statistics change over time.
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
You have been able to change your gender officially for decades. All the recent brouhaha has effectively been over being able to change it at a whim. You see, having to put your firm conviction that you are gender X or gender Y on record is somehow a tool of patriarchal oppression.
... on us.
Sickening, isn't it, the way the JEW controls our countries and tells us all what we can and can't say, and can and can't do. How 'democratic' to have a bunch of JEWS being given the power to print money out of thin air, and thus totally control our countries. Gee... who could possibly be behind endless mass immigration of worthless, parasitic third worlders. Could it be the Jew? Say it ain't so!
All male feminists are rapists. Remember that and it will help you understand their behavior.
Yup. The board of directors in a capitalist firm is equivalent to the set of political commisars in a Soviet firm. Their purpose is to *control* the company - to keep it in line with the dominant sociopolitical system - not to *run* the company.
Feminism is a key ideology of the authoritarian financialist state. Therefore it follows that said state will try to ensure feminists are represented among the commisars.
Women are smarter in a certain way. They see how bad it is and decide it's not worth it earlier than men do. They preserve more of their vital years for thing that matter than men do. This has to be counted as a form of intelligence.
There are far more women in the world who are afforded the option to not work or be excused for the purposes of building a family. And right about the time that biological clock really starts ticking is when a lot of women make that career decision; go after the executive position or start a family.
What you see as "smarter" I see as nothing more than a luxury that very few men legitimately have. And yes, of course it's going to throw off the numbers of women vs. men in the workforce. Are we also going to sit around and pretend to be shocked and outraged to find that Mr. Mom only represents 5% of the homemaker workforce, or is that just one of those No-Shit-Sherlock statistical observations that we should probably learn to apply elsewhere...
Top positions of corporations require some different level of thinking. Calculated, a bit aggressive and cold emotions to make decisions and handle people. It is possible to have women with that thinking, but this really requires different mindset even for a men to be on top of the board. I for one don't care about corporations, that have boards.
Anyway, this bureaucratic problem can be solved easily - by making public company private, by moving HQ out of CA or even US, by setting up puppet board... then there are shareholders and they have wives or daughters or female lovers. It will be now more easier and official and with less suspicion to place females on board, if that is a requirement. Yeah, it will be harder for gay lovers to get into a board... actually I'm wrong on this and let me rephrase - it will be harder for a straight male to get into board.
First you had San Francisco wanting to eliminate company cafeterias and force workers to go out for lunch. Now a government entity wants to tell you who needs to be on your board of directors. Its not even diversity that is the problem here, diversity is about hiring qualified people from all races, sexes, and other criteria when those people meet the requirements for employment. Instead of the token black man we now see the token woman being hired to fill the requirement. Yeah that's real progressive and it has never worked.
How about mandating every company have at least two *workers* on the board? That would provide a lot more real diversity of viewpoint.
Not murdering people... so great that it has to be mandatory.
The board of directors in a capitalist firm is equivalent to the set of political commisars in a Soviet firm.
Nope. There were no political commisars in the Soviet firms. I know, because I've worked in several, and you've never even been close to one.
Feminism is a key ideology of the authoritarian financialist state.
Substantiate. What is"financialist state", how is it "authoritarian", and how does "feminism" help it.
Therefore it follows that said state will try to ensure feminists are represented among the commisars.
One of your premises is false, the other is not substantiated, so, no, it doesn't.
How old are you, 14?
Sounds like something a woman would say.
Can we have two or three undocumented immigrants on boards as well?
<Lumbergh>I want to give you this promotion, so if you could just self-identify as a woman.... that'd be great.</Lumbergh>
"You can't just hand it out to people who didn't earn it."
But a lot do. The financial elite is mostly a closed shop. Do you know how board members are "appointed"? The clue is in the word, and there is nothing fair about it.
To a point.
Running the company well is equally important, since if you're actually making money you don't need those connections since they inevitably involve begging for more loan money to bail out your failing operation.
PS: I'm ignoring connections with customers and vendors as if the business is big enough the CEO won't be involved at that level unless someone done fucked up.
The push for an Equal Rights Amendment in the 70's was wrong. Many people called it "Equal Rights for Women". That was one part of why it didn't pass. The other part was that many women realized it would prohibit them from obtaining better than equal rights through legislation. Perhaps part of it was fear of having to register for Selective Service during a war.
We now have woman only schools but male only schools (formerly such as VMI) are illegal. It is Ok to charge men more for life and auto insurance because of risk but not to charge women more for health insurance which they use more. There are woman owned business benefits but not for male owned businesses. We still have many unfair divorce laws.
Perhaps now is the time for an Equal Rights Amendment. The benefits are much more obvious now.
... what if the dude identifies as a woman?
California's gonna tell him that he isn't one?
The bill contains this little nugget in the footnotes:
" “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth."
I was already hoping the bill would pass because of the silliness of it, but with the above it's gonna be comedy gold.
I look forward to the coder bro CEOs having to come to work in dresses as "Mary".
I mean, those who don't do that already ...
Like a unicorn, there are none.
Then write a law banning addresses and names on resumes.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Why is this not discrimination? Oh, that's right, because discriminating against men is completely okay... especially if this man is white, heterosexual, and cis gender. Bonus points if you discriminate against his religion and/or political affiliation.
Sure, there is still a lot of discrimination and inequality against women, minorities, and other groups which we need to find ways to work on. However, discriminating against another group to do this is NOT okay. I guess California lawmakers and voters have never cared much about logic, though. Sigh....
Agreed. They will just pay the fine with others peoples money.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Board members are voted into place by the stockholders. Is California looking to undo that? Do the Senators who passed this realize how many rights would be violated or invalidated by it? Who told them they had anything like the authority to do so?
who are afforded the option to not work or be excused for the purposes of building a family.
I see as nothing more than a luxury that very few men legitimately have.
You must be very young and inexperienced if you think that a) running a house is an easy job and b) that any of it is "drowning in luxury".
since if you're actually making money you don't need those connections since they inevitably involve begging for more loan money to bail out your failing operation.
Says the guy who has no connections and no idea how boards work.
Post modern neo-marxists. Lovely people, I'm sure.
California needs to be dragged into court. This is nothing more than codified misandry.
Yup. And collect a big bonus for doing so.
So if I just self identify as a woman, no surgery or trans, does that meet the law? What if I join board as bio woman then trans...still count?
"Women do not like confrontation or long hours"
Do you even hear yourself? This is the stuff you tell yourself, there's not a shred of evidence to demonstrate it. Specifically, I challenge you to find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours.
"it's good for a company's bottom line." Leave it to Government officials to know what is best for everyone. I thought Democrats hated giant corporations. Would forcing them to take women on the board actually help or is some sort of insidious plan to bring them all crashing down?
The bill is written such that it requires women to be on the board, but not men. This is a very clear violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.
Had they worded it with more balanced language (must consist of at least one member of each gender, must consist of at least 2 members of each gender) they might have slipped it under the constitutional radar. But no.. they had to go with sexist language. I'm glad because it shows that this is an inherently sexist idea.
I was thinking the other day we need a new word for this sort of extreme identity politics. The extreme left is starting to resemble the fundamentalist Christians in their quest for purity. California has this weird sort of lefto-fascist politics going on where San Francisco banned meat, the entire state banned the sale of horse meat, and now this inherently sexist legislation. The South, full of fundamentalist Christians is called the Bible Belt. What do we call California, full of Fundamentalist Liberals?
"Women do not like confrontation or long hours"
Do you even hear yourself? This is the stuff you tell yourself, there's not a shred of evidence to demonstrate it. Specifically, I challenge you to find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours.
I'm too lazy to google it, and I'm not saying the study is accurate; but I did read one study a long time ago that looked into why women still earn less and earn fewer promotions held on to personal dynamics. Yeah, sexism plays a major role too- but when it comes to office politics, women were shown (in this one study) to be more likely to hold onto a grudge and remember a disagreement more than men. Women were 4 or 5 more times more likely to say that they have a boss or coworker who they consider a "foe or enemy" than men were. Typically if men had a disagreement at work, after a few weeks they'd forget about it. Women were less likely to forget what they considered a slight on them.
If this study were accurate (and I've no clue how accurate it is, its something I read a few years ago and I don't remember the details) - it could explain why in todays world where sexism is tolerated less and women are achieving more than men academically fewer women reach the top of corporations. They could be treating like enemies the very people who would promote them.
Again, I'm not saying I agree with the study, just throwing it out there as something I read- and it sounds plausible.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
No, because no woman has ever been attacked in a highly highly gendered fashion, called "bitches" when aggressive (though less than their "go-get-it" male counterparts), accused of sleeping around, or of being pre-menstrual, etc, etc, etc. You're livin in fucken dreamland matey.
I know - my wife was the highest paid person in her company - Higher indeed than the owner. It was a company involved in flooring and construction, so lots of "traditional men" worked there.
All those things happened.
She was called a bitch - by women.
She was accused all the time of sleeping with the boss - by women.
All of that stuff that people try to attribute to men. Man, there were some nasty sexist bigot women there.
One thing both she and I learned was that there is a interesting relationship between loud people and what they say, and what they do.
These women were very loud about how they were oppressed because of their sex, but if a woman did well, they made excuses for that success based soley on..... sex. Projection 101. They were sexist bigots, and the only positive thing they got out of their bigotry was a cheap easy excuse for their own lack of success.
Their projection was not unlike the Social Conservative gay hating folks who rail on about the unholy sinful acts of sodomy, but then are caught having sex with another of the same sex.
This is no accident, it is projection. Accuse others of what you are.
there are sexists of both sexes, obviously. I merely point out that if we use sexism to cure sexism, it will never work.
And since Animojo will chime in here, telling me I am doing the same - no, I'm not.
If I wrote something stupid like "All women are sexist", that would be a pretty good indicator that I was projecting, and probably am guilty of what I am accusing others of.
No, I just react, noting that a system that determines qualification for a position based on the equipment between a person's legs, is the very definition of sexist. These sexist women are trying to pass an overtly sex based law. To deny that is to be sexist.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm already identifying as a afro american woman from syria.
PS: I'm ignoring connections with customers and vendors as if the business is big enough the CEO won't be involved at that level unless someone done fucked up.
The CEO is the lead salesman in almost every company. Only in small companies are they involved in the day-to-day operations of the company, but it's always about sales at any size, from closing the largest deals to quarterly earnings calls.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
they think they're being targeted because they're women. Wrong.
The Hampton-Alexander Review found evidence that this is true. Excuses given for not appointing women to exec level included:
- "I don't think women fit comfortably into the board environment"
- "My other board colleagues wouldn't want to appoint a woman on our board"
- "All the 'good' women have already been snapped up"
- "We have one woman already on the board, so we are done - it is someone else's turn"
Women are smarter in a certain way. They see how bad it is and decide it's not worth it earlier than men do. They preserve more of their vital years for thing that matter than men do. This has to be counted as a form of intelligence.
Ihave a friend who works at a hospital. She watches high powered men die all the time. They almost all regret how they dpent their lives.
So the logical thing is to support efforts to make those roles more attractive to women, because that would benefit everyone, men included. A change of culture would be good for all concerned.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The Catholic Church in California?
BTW, the captch for this post was 'sexist'.
the most successful companies on the planet are run by men. these assertions about the benefits of gender diversity are without proof.
as expected you misquoted me via ellipsis, cherry picked a recent news item to deflect from decades of substantive academically rigorous studies and then dismissed the most humanly relevant part of my post.
Feminists are just people with personality disorders they've politicized.
Yeah, you're all about the data.
"boards of five directors must have at least two women, and companies with six-member boards must have at least three women"
But we need to finish the rest of the law, otherwise that's obviously discrimination. boards of 5 must have at least 2 men, at least 2 women, and at least 1 "other".
1 needs to be a white, one a black, one a hispanic, one an asian, and one from new zealand. At least 2 must have dark hair, and at least 1 blonde hair blue eyes. 1 singer, 1 song writer, 1 dancer, 1 scientist and 1 video game nerd. One dog owner, 1 cat owner, 1 bird owner. It'd be great to get a polygamist on board, but we're not quite there yet.
... keep your filthy cunts out of our boards, it's very distracting ! LOL.
there's not a shred of evidence to demonstrate it.
Please stop pretending your PC outrage is based on disagreement on interpretation of the data, and not pure ideology.
Do you allow for any innate differences between men and women? Does biology stop at the neck?
Please note that I was not even talking about average men vs average women, but about the extremes.
Were you are aware there are more men at the opposite end too? Far more men in prisons and homeless. No doubt you can find a way to blame men for that too.
This bill needs to be defeated. It does not promote diversity. Instead, it promotes a single gender*. There is no provision in this bill for a balanced board. A board can be composed of entirely “female, as defined” members and pass muster.
I have personally experienced the effects of the required minimum female rule, without a requirement for male participation. At a statewide meeting, our group of 4 men were almost denied participation while a group of 4 women were not challenged. The women in our group chose to not take off time for this meeting which required almost 7 hours of travel time, plus a full weekend away. The rule as it existed at the time required a woman if there were 4 or more members. No requirement for gender diversity if it was all female.
The hypocrisy was evident to all, and we were seated, but this should never have happened. Anyone who champions this type of law should be looked at as the sexists discriminatory person that she or he is. Do not single out one gender for special treatment.
you will hear a "woosh" sound as companies leave California for states that are less authoritarian. Just think of all the money you will save on cooling data centers in Alaska.
It is pure comedy gold, the stupidity of the Left never ceases to amaze me.
In sum, a lot of folks on here are opposed to this. So what, we just stay male-dominated forever and are totally cool with that?
There are fewer women on boards not becuse women are less intelligent but because there are fewer of them at the top of corporations
If that is the reason then it is an obvious case where positive discrimination could temporarily be applied to break the vicious cycle.
Sorry, but as engineers we know that nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. Federal Income Tax was supposed to be temporary. Affirmative Action was supposed to be temporary. Ruby was supposed to be a prototyping language.
We need to attack the problem where it initiates. Look at the gender ratios of college graduates in different fields. Then look at the gender ratios of qualified candidates compared to the gender ratios of who gets the position. Look at the gender ratios of people at the company based on length of employment.
Many women leave the workforce to raise children. My own mom dropped out of college to raise 7 children before completing her college degree (my mom graduated college the same month I graduated high school). My sisters-in-law and my sister left the work force when their first children were born and only returned when their youngest were in school. As a man, I took a month off for paternity leave for my two children. My wife has considered working despite having two young children, but the cost of daycare means she would need to earn at least $20 per hour pretax to compensate.
...
"So the logical thing is to support efforts to make those roles more attractive to women,"
Some guy with the last name Damore said the same thing. He was called a sexist pig, fired from Google, and held up as a pariah.
Why do you hate women, you sexist bigot?
I wonder only who designated sex at my birth. Or who is doing it generally? As this is a social construct it means change can be done any time - will will suffice.
It may make you feel better to think of my critique as being "PC outrage" but the fact remains that you offer no evidence whatsoever to back up your little wank-fantasy. We can't disagree on interpretation of the data, because you haven't provided any data. Muppet. When you can find some evidence, we can debate its interpretation. Till then, you carry on pretending to yourself that you're the brave dispassionate seeker of truth and I'm the woolly-minded liberal who you are cutting down with your searing arguments and penetrating intellect. It won't make your arguments any better, but it will give you some more of that warm glow you enjoy.
affirmative action in action.
Translation:
Most women want to do the family thing by the time they're in their late 20s and childless, regardless of their background, education, wealth or skill.
Most men have to work to an early death (roughly 5 years earlier than women in the west) to accommodate the above.
It's not ability, training, career or personal drive, it's a biological reality regardless of what certain groups pretend.
"Women do not like confrontation or long hours" I challenge you to find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours.
Would the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics be considered "half-decent"?
There will, following this absurd law, be women on boards, which is the goal; but they will have zero say and power. Their presence will be purely for the so-called "optics" of it: Feel good reactionism. This is tokenism at its finest, boys and girls. If California chooses to be so stupid as to embrace this ideological idiocy, then California will shortly discover themselves to be in possession of female board members that are there for the photo op, and nothing more. Then these ladies, and the feminist organizations, will cry foul. Place in positions of power those that are qualified, not those that meet a societal requirement. Only then will you have real success. If women want to be on a board, that's fine, but you must first prove that you belong through your merits, not because you happen to be the proud bearer of a uterus.
Yes. If only that were a study about preferences for working hours, rather than a study about working hours, it might be able to make the case that "women don't like working long hours". You do understand the difference between a preference and what actually happens, don't you? You know, like the difference between liking the idea of being a Navy SEAL but actually living in Mommy's basement struggling to shift 300lbs of blubber off the sofa.
> Companies are not going to appoint less qualified people unless they're forced to ...
That's for sure. Look at how good Youtube is doing with their CEO. Look at Carly Fiorina's excellent work at HP. And Chairman Pao? Whatever happened to the Theranos chick? Not to mention Martha Stewart...
Yup. Clearly companies don't always appoint the best person for the job but CLEARLY the best person for the job is not a woman 50% of the time necessarily.
"I'm equal with a man because the government had to step in to say so..."
Yeah. Right. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
Do you or do you not believe men and women are exactly the same above the neck?
Simple question which you dodged because countless medical and psychological studies have proven they are not.
Carry on. Muppet.
Let's see... working 50+ hours a week plus commute
Vs
Grocery shopping app with free delivery.
Make school lunch for kids and drop them off at school and pick them up everyday. Make dinner. Some cleaning once a week except he takes out the trash and does the yard work. So, being generous it is 4 hours a day (lolololol) to run a household.
Wow yeah being a home maker is sooooo hard!!!
Based on what you're saying, it sounds like this is actually in some ways a good thing. The corporate environment is shockingly unhealthy, and benefits the bullies, loudmouths and narcissists.
Rather than poo pooing this as something that should be done because women didn't play the game to the same level of insanity as it currently is, this should be seen as the thin wedge of a desperately needed culture change.
ROFLMAO
Someone upvote this funny.
Oh wait, you're serious?
Um. You're not very good at following a debate, are you? If you were, you'd have noticed that when Quenda posed their very exciting simple question about men and women above the neck, they did so as a means of ... what's the word I'm looking for ... oh yes, "dodging" the challenge I put to them: "find any half-decent studies showing a meaningful difference between women and men on their preference for confrontation or working long hours".
As it appears to have escaped what passes for yours and Quenda's tiny minds, the bar of my challenge -- which was set by the OP's assertion that women don't like conflict and long hours -- is quite a lot higher than showing there are meaningful psychological differences between men and women per se. The meaningful psychological differences may relate to completely different things, like colour preference or ability to process auditory stimuli.
You guys got so fucking frothed up on your little rhetorical flourishes that you are completely unable to follow the logic of an argument. The irony of this coming from people who so frequently pride themselves on so-called masculine traits of dispassionate argument is a delicious added extra. Have you ever thought of applying to go on Who Is America? You're very well suited to a segment.
Your punctuation infuriates me.
I remember when California fought hard to end Affirmative Action, now they are doing everything possible to reinstate it. Not like anyone in the entire state has a lick of sense.
Millennial incel confirmed.
Shouldn't a company be allowed to hire the right person for the job, not "the right gender"?
ok ok, lets look at marrissa mayer, meg whitmen, carly fiorinia, the lady from Thereanos.
No only is this SEXIST, but based on the past experiences, is this the right thing to do?
Or, should the old modicum still stand the right person for the right job?
Instead of making it happen, why not put women into programs that prepare them for this movement? If they survive then they move on, if not then the picture is clear, time to move on..
You know, at most companies, there's nothing stopping you from putting in more hours. In fact, they'd be pretty happy about it.
Isn't California one of those places big on protecting people that "identify" as a certain gender? I'm stockpiling popcorn for when potential board members start identifying as women so they can get hired instead of actual women. Will be funny to see all the liberal heads explode.
If you say you're a woman, you may be. If your DNA has set your biology to female, you are female. If you say you're a woman for any other reason, your are still a male.
Or just one more way to force companies out of CA?
This might be the reason your company leaves before the state bankrupts, oullaws or destroys your business.
Instead their should be some kind of incentive for them not to be sexist assholes. You can't outlaw this. You force women on the board and they'll still be marginalized, probably even more so because the rich old white guys are going to be super pissed that they were forced to include them.
And when we do experiments sending in identical CVs, but for a male/female first name, to job advertisements, and the male named applications overwhelmingly get offered interviews ... that the life choices women make too, yeah?
We typically find the opposite; women are MORE likely to be offered a job, rather than less.
What reason do you have for assuming that women are tested at a lower rate than men?
Ah, that explains it. You're some 90 year old retard who's never heard of washing machines.
Yes, running a household in your day was very hard. These days, not so much. Welcome to 2018.
Boards will be forced to hire women, but not forced to hire men. This sounds good in theory, but when you think about it for 1/2 a second, if the board is comprised of only women, they aren't forced to hire men, which means this is the furthest thing possible from fairness / equality. Thanks to Feminist, men are having more and more hate thrown at them and in their face, and now it's being legislated.
Board of Directors is functionally useless for a public or private companies.
The make decisions about the company which are detached from reality, and have zero interaction with the employees or the customers.
Most of these 'boards' have never done one thing for anyone other than themselves.
And no, they do not do ANYTHING for stock holders but they have been known to do things TO the stock holders.
In 2012 it was established that the United States of America was officially an Oligarchy by definition. (which was/is patently obvious)
From that day forward it should be clear to the sea of retards that no corporation or its leaders are your friend.
Undermine a corporation in any way you can. Its the new American Patriotisim!
I have worked in enough companies to respect the intellect and hard working females I have had the pleasure of working with. When I had female boss's, I had to justify my position. Which is how it should be. Currently I work on a fortune 100 company, where there are a very diverse group that are in positions of authority. Not sure how the board of directors are made up. But I do know that there are women in positions of leading roles of the various divisions. But this is just one company. And I know there is the old boy network(color does not matter here). Do I want it to be a law... Eh, not sure I agree with that. BUT, I do think something needs to be done.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Not allowed. Constitution prohibits sex discrimination. A conservative supreme court will view this as "gender blindness".
He cited a Japanese study. He will next cite a Saudi study.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Already been said much better than we ever could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Is the proposal inclusive. What of companies with female board of directors? Is the language such that a 5 member board is required to have 2 men, that a 6 member board is required to have 3 men?
So much for the ability to choose the best people for the job. I guess Travelzoo will need to fire some women on their board!
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Say what you want, but Martha Stewart is an amazing businesswoman. Stock investor? Not so much. But the fact that is that she is a self-made billionaire with a media empire that survived her conviction and incarceration with aplomb.
The only one that seems frothed up is you muppet.
Answer the question, are their physiological differences?
50% of all the male board members suddenly claimed that they gender identified as a woman. Mind you, there have been a slue of recent protections for that in California.
Sorry, have to call you out on the German quote.
Loosely translate, it says that "sausage tastes better when you don't watch it being made".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... See the "agreeableness" and "neuroticism" section.
"So the logical thing is to support efforts to make those roles more attractive to women,"
Some guy with the last name Damore said the same thing.
I thought that at first too, but then I stumbled across this post, so I suspect that "make those roles more attractive to women" means something different to AmiMoJo.
Why would I answer your question? I've already explained why it's a mere diversion. You can engage with the debate, or you can carry on shouting into your own little echo chamber.
I do know. I'm not sure it's relevant, but I definitely know that.
For a time during the cold war all schoolchildren were supposed to be tested, at least where I live. There has been hundreds of large studies otherwise.
The standard deviation in IQ for men is higher than women. The number varies from test to test, being a quotient distribution, yet the pattern is as scientifically reliable and definitive as global warming and plate tectonics.
There are more women of average intelligence than men. There are more really smart and really dumb men than there are women.
Of the top and bottom million humans, using the best testing resources available, about 800,000 on either end are male.
Any category that selects for low or high intelligence, such as inventors, scientists, homeless, or criminals, men dominate. Men have always dominated and, unless through forced sexism, will always dominate in those areas.
I now apply for double sex!
Lots of words to say nothing shilly. Answer the question.
Yes, or no.
Do you believe biology stops at the neck?
After years of pondering, the truth as I see it is simple.
Yes, women are into shoes. Women are not as capable as men at various subjects, and the inverse is true. Men have specific 'likes', and lack some capabilities women have.
But there's the thing. That's averages speaking. The same averages that allow insurance companies to charge men more for insurance, and youth more for insurance, based upon accident statistics. It's called "the truth" and "averages".
The real problem comes from the sad truth that people are very good at "grouping" things, and very bad at ignoring those "groups" and evaluating the individual. Some of this may make sense from a historical/genetic/survival perspective. Knowing that a tiger will try to eat you, and that a zebra will leave you alone, is good to know. Further, knowing that certain characteristics (big teeth) can indicate things, is very very helpful too.
So, we're good at grouping -- poor at individual assessment. Or, as some people call it "ism". Sexism. Racism. Culturism. Etc.
True equality can only come from being taught that the above is *absolutely true*, that women or men or blacks or whites can be thrown into 'groups', while at the same time? Ensuring that EACH person is gauged individually.
Because as individuals? You can *not* tell what skills, capabilities, talent a person has... those averages are meaningless.
So until we get past this stupid blather about how women are identical to men, which a 3 year old child sees is wrong and immediately rejects, and move on to "women are different from men, but individually it is unknown how any person stacks up against any other person", we'll get no where.
And this all means that it is *perfectly normal* for there to be... say, only be 10% of women which line up as equally skilled as men capable of doing job $x well. Or that in other professions, it may be inversed. Or even 50%/50%. What is pivotal, utterly and completely important, is that we all KNOW the TRUTH -- that race, sex, age, and the list goes on? Doesn't mean the person isn't exceptionally skilled at job $x. And shouldn't be hired.
That's the concept we all need to hold.
think of my critique as being "PC outrage" but ... your little wank-fantasy.
No outrage there at all, no sir.
As it happens, I'm not wedded to the idea that fewer women desire to work the long hours. It might even be different in your country than mine. You might be right on that aspect, or we could just be arguing over words. I show men work longer hours, and you claim tat is not a "choice", but culture pushes them into the role of domestic labour and childcare. You may well be correct on that. Though again, that is averages and the extremes probably still differ.
The thing is, I believe it would be a pointless argument, like trying to convince a moon-landing conspiracy theorist. Because your mind is already made up on the ideological basis that men and women are the same in all ways. There is ample evidence that this is absurd.
I'm the woolly-minded liberal
I'm liberal too, even from your viewpoint, in that I share the ideals of your country's liberal culture. Equality, fairness, individualism. I'll side with you on your left-right hot button issues. So don't make this about partisan politics. I just do not let ideals colour my empirical observations.
Shouldn't it be mandated that there be at least one left handed person on each company board? For diversity.
Sorry, have to call you out on the German quote.
Loosely translate[d], it says that "sausage tastes better when you don't watch it being made".
The quote was a reference, albeit somewhat obscure, to the fact that corporate hiring procedures, much like the writing of laws (or the manufacture of sausage), doesn't invite inspection. Or to be more precise, one's rose-coloured view of how such institutions function, doesn't survive witnessing their practice. As to the translation ... werden die Worte "Gesetze sind wie Würste" nicht übersetzt, dann geht der Sinn dieses Spruches eigentlich verloren, oder?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
AND THE HOME OF THE WOMYN
as expected ...
Expected?! I must have missed that prediction ...
That's a fairly serious charge to make without actual substantiation? How exactly did my literal quoting of you distort your message? Why not set the record straight?
When you wrote "There are fewer women on boards not becuse [sic] women are less intelligent but because there are fewer of them at the top of corporations" did you mean something other than that the lack of depth experience at higher executive levels is to blame for the lack of female board members? What then did you mean?
Or when you wrote "The reason for that is not discrimination, it's that women overwhelmingly make different life choices," did you mean something other than that the reason was not discrimination, but that women overwhelmingly make different "life choices". If so, what did you mean, again, how have I misquoted you by literally quoting you?
Or when you wrote: "What gets me is when women encounter the real level of competetive [sic] viciousness inside companies, they think they're being targeted because they're women. Wrong," did you not mean to say it was wrong that women are being attacked qua women? Again, what was it you meant to say that I so unjustly bent out of shape by quoting you word for word?
The misquoting accusation is more bullshit, yeah? As far as ellipsis is concerned ... that's unavoidable really.
cherry picked a recent news item
Cherry picking means selecting certain data points and hiding those which disagree with what you are claiming. That's not what I'm doing here (arguably you are). You wrote: "The reason for that is not discrimination, it's that women overwhelmingly make different life choices." I need show only a single case of discrimination to establish the falsity of that claim. The falsity of your claim was established.
Now the concept "life choices" is itself incoherent. It's my choice to live in a 3 storey water front house and drive a Masarati. But what life has dealt me is something else, I have a 2 storey house, that while it is in an expensive area is probably not even worth $1mill and drive a late model Subaru. Even that is fairly lucky ... a few different contigencies in life and I could not own my own home, have a far less well remunerated job and drive some old bomb. "LIfe choices" is not what you chose, but what life deals you. Or it is simply a code for, let's leverage the fact that it's up to women to reproduce the species to get ahead of them in the corporate pecking order ...
On the contrary. I pointed to the job application studies which shows for technical and managerial jobs, male names with identical CVs get more interviews. Interestingly the opposite was found when the job was in childcare (i.e. male names hardly got a look in). In other words culturally accepted gender roles influence (not exclusively "lifestyle choices") play a large role in hiring decisions. Nor, as the studies show, is it only men who are guilty of succumbing to the influence of these stereotypes. It was shown, for example, that men in nursing get elevated to managerial positions much more quickly than female nurses, by women higher in the hierarchy, as if to relieve these women's social anxiety that a man is doing a "caring" job, rather than a man's job.
I'm sorry, but it was simply trite.
Feminists are just people with personality disorders they've politicized.
So now the motivation for your "reasoning" is revealed, you have some kind of a problem with feminism? Since I'd never "identify" as a feminist, your slight has failed to hit its target.
She was called a bitch - by women. She was accused all the time of sleeping with the boss - by women. All of that stuff that people try to attribute to men.
You will note that nowhere did I (or would I ever) claim that men were the sole perpetrators. Obviously women are socialised into the same cultural biases as anyone in their society. A classic example is that in primitive societies (as they surely are for engaging in this practice), female genital mutilation is left to women to institute. I believe that's why (some) feminists coined the word 'patriarchy' (or rather distorted it from the older meaning I would ordinarily use): to describe a phenomenon that resides not (merely) in individual human beings (men or women) but in human cultures, although many of the less intellectual feminists seem to have a problem with us men personally.
We typically find the opposite; women are MORE likely to be offered a job, rather than less.
When the job is in childcare that is true (male names fare very badly). For technical and managerial jobs the opposite appears to be true, male names get the interview, female names get far LESS. Also there's some work to suggest that gender-blind job applications raise the number of women considered. Though this has been contradicted elsewhere on the basis that blind applications leave glaring lacuna in the CV, where women have taken time to have children, and thus work against such women. (Just ask my wife: mothers are far more discriminated against than women in general).
If you want to expand your knowledge here, just even to assess the enemy's armoury, I'd suggest reading Part 1 of Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender, which is as empirically rigorous as anyone with a horse in the race --all of us --can get really (it get's more wishy-washy feministy in the later parts imho).
She was called a bitch - by women. She was accused all the time of sleeping with the boss - by women. All of that stuff that people try to attribute to men.
You will note that nowhere did I (or would I ever) claim that men were the sole perpetrators.
You will also note that nowhere did I claim that you did. My point is that women are some of the most bigoted and blatant sexists around. My wife's experience jibes completely with the experiences of my lady friends who are engineers and scientists. So how are we going to fix that by forcing men out of positions and replacing them with women?
Obviously women are socialised into the same cultural biases as anyone in their society.
Just curious - what are the programs that tell women they have to treat other women better? That spreading rumors that successful women are fucking the boss - or as one woman claimed of my wife - "She must not only suck, she must swallow!". Where are those programs? What exactly can a male do to change the lewd and misogynistic behaviour a a huge number of women? Every program - this forced eviction is typical of identifying all of women's problems as caused by men. Can you show me where the efforts are to have women stop their misandryic and misogynistic behavior? "Empowerment" merely seems to accentuate the anger in many.
And how much do men have ot change? At the wife's work, the men adored and respected her. When she handed out orders, they listened, she would help do some of the in-office work to help them even. And these were the rough tough contractor types, the archetype of the male chauvinist pig. She only had real trouble with something like 2 guys. What more could they change in their behavior? They were not the problem, and we aren't allowed to suggest anything but males are the problem. That's why this bill is sponsored - the idea is that by getting rid of men and inserting women, it will improve things.
A classic example is that in primitive societies (as they surely are for engaging in this practice), female genital mutilation is left to women to institute.
That's another thing that is strange. Most men I know - including myself are horrified and disgusted by that practice to the point of condoning violence to eradicate the assholes that practice it and rescuing any child we could. I don't hear anytwhere near as much complaints from feminists compared to some of the trivial crap they complain about like air conditioning being sexist or that a man needs consent to speak to a woman (I know the logical issue there)
I believe that's why (some) feminists coined the word 'patriarchy' (or rather distorted it from the older meaning I would ordinarily use): to describe a phenomenon that resides not (merely) in individual human beings (men or women) but in human cultures, although many of the less intellectual feminists seem to have a problem with us men personally.
Many people, male and female have a deep seated need for hatred. There are people in this world who would exploit that. This is not a good situation, because as politicians, the legal system, men, and some completely sexist programs are making it a good time to be a woman, yet they grow angrier every day, which is strange.
I have a few hypotheses on that, based on the weak man concept - but prefer not to get crucified here today.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
My point is that women are some of the most bigoted and blatant sexists around. My wife's experience jibes completely with the experiences of my lady friends who are engineers and scientists. So how are we going to fix that by forcing men out of positions and replacing them with women?
I don't think the aim of this initiative is to stop the workplace harassment of your wife, so much as to increase the probability that your wife might eventually sit on the board of some company somewhere (in California). Clearly simply inserting a single female onto the board would not be expected to change deep seated jealousies with which particularly successful women are met, nor and cultural stereotypes deployed against them, on the shop floor. I don't think that is where this is even meant to go.
Just curious - what are the programs that tell women they have to treat other women better? ... What exactly can a male do to change the lewd and misogynistic behaviour a a huge number of women? Every program - this forced eviction is typical of identifying all of women's problems as caused by men
My obviously radically different politics notwithstanding, let me be clear: I think it's simply atrocious that your wife has been subjected to a clearly misogynistic attack (sure someone might occasionally accuse a bloke of sucking the bosses dick, but the consistency of the nature of the attack you describe is something only a successful women would be subject to), as if a woman could possibly owe her success to hard work and talent. It would be atrocious were men the perps, it's no less atrocious that women are saying this. Nor, sadly, does it surprise me that women behave in this fashion towards other women.
Again, far be it for me to tell feminists what to believe, but in my limited understanding, theoretical feminism, (at least before this confused millenial intersectional identity feminism came along), has the capacity to understand cultural barriers women face as existing outside individuals and as being able to be perpetuated by women just as well as by men. They even have the catch-phrase "internalised misogyny" for this. So where, outside of generalised anti-bullying initiatives, is this particular real problem dealt with, good question.
That's another thing that is strange. Most men I know - including myself are horrified and disgusted by that practice to the point of condoning violence to eradicate the assholes that practice it and rescuing any child we could. I don't hear anytwhere near as much complaints from feminists ...
Seriously?! OK, maybe things have changed over the last decade (again confused millenials), but every feminist woman I have ever known is outraged by this practice and feminist organisations certainly used to jump up and down about it .. to the point of getting a FGM clause inserted in our Crimes Act. Actually the only single person I've debated I've seen trivialising FGM, was some British MRA who was arguing that male circumcision was every bit as bad as FGM.
I have a few hypotheses on that, based on the weak man concept - but prefer not to get crucified here today.
A wise choice. Since I'm posting as AC, though I might not have sufficient posts left to get you all nailed up in time. ;)
Right. So you're carrying on in your own little echo chamber instead of engaging. Good to know.
It's also hilarious that you think this is some kind of killer question:
"If he answers "yes", he believes that biology stops at the neck, and that's just *ridiculous*. And if he answers "no", then he's just a big stinking *hypocrite*."
It's just such a stupid and pointless way of debating. Who really can be satisfied in shadow-boxing with strawmen like that?
Thank you for engaging meaningfully.
(An aside, but wank-fantasy isn't me expressing outrage. It's me sneering at your argument. Now you've engaged meaningfully, I won't do that)
My mind isn't at all made up that men and women are the same in all ways. I just don't think the differences are meaningful enough to have explanatory power for why men and women do the different jobs they do or their working patterns. The chain of cause and effect is too long, the confounding factors are too numerous and powerful, psychology isn 't precise enough to follow differences accurately enough, and inter-group variation is too small compared to intra-group variation. The gap between "in one study of 100 infants, male babies preferred three stereotypically male toys and female babies preferred three stereotypically female toys" and "men are more present on boards because they like conflict and long hours compared to women" is too large to be bridged.
You are making an assumption about what country I'm in. We may live in the same country.
Double standards. This will be really bad for women, because it will and may it's showing that they aren't 'equals' as they keep saying.
People will hite them, pay an ok salary, and leave them at side, with contractual clauses. Very good feminism. Next is have to have a gay too. F... dumb word
Forcing companies to put women on their boards ... that's how fucked up California is. That's as bad of an idea as Affirmative Action. Imagine being an owner and being forced to to have 30% hispanic males, 18% white females, 12% insert race and gender here.
What's wrong with hiring the most qualified person - and that's it? HIRE THE BEST FOR THE JOB - not because they are male or female or hispanic or white. Ridiculous.
..because they are inferiour to men, and the scale have to be adjusted in womans favour. Just like neeggers and tranz people.
I'd appoint my wife and daughter to be non-voting board members, and pay each $1 / year.
Ok, there are 12 of us men on the board, no women. So 6 of us have to identify as a woman and dress up as a woman, hose, girdle, etc for the next year. What'll it be men? Short straws, poker, shooting range score, golf or do we go by seniority?
I joke about this... watch it become reality.
So, they're private companies able to do whatever they want and immune from regulation as long as they hurt conservatives... but they can be instantly put under the government control when it will help an "oppressed class".
Let's fight fake sexism with real sexism.
How long until the LGBTQs and minorities insist on the same thing? I have nothing against anyone, unless they pass bills in CA, if the do, let them choke on all the leftover plastic straws, or use railroad weed since weed taxes are so high the companies are going out of business. Bloody vultures, each and every one of them.
Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
I fully support this measure as long as it includes maximum age and minimum breast size requirements.
This will just make being on the board even more exclusive. They'll just bring in somebody's wife or daughter that has a passing interest in the company and call it a day. Also, what about all female boards? I don't see anyone wanting to force them to get a man on there. Don't forget minorities too.
... they will synchronize their monthly "board meetings".
https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/newsle...
https://tspace.library.utoront...
https://www.tandfonline.com/do...
The last one is the most directly applicable but requires access to the journal to read it.
In essence, having been asked to choose the child more likely to be gifted from two profiles, a teacher will, in statistically significant degree select the male student.
In most school districts the selection criteria for choosing a student for further testing is that the teacher refers the student, and then a screening test is administered (e.g. CCAT) to confirm the teacher's initial assessment. Then a full spectrum IQ test is administered - typically a WISC V at the moment.
If you pre-select at the first gate, your overall statistics will be skewed at the last gate.
Add onto this the social issues cited in the other two papers, (e.g. a social predisposition away from competitive activities (I'll leave nature vs nature discussions aside as 1) they're not germane to the discussion, and 2) I'm unaware of any well regarded research on the matter) influencing the result of most(*) testing situations.
(* This can be reduced through a testing environment divorced from the classroom environment with an appropriately trained test administer, but these aren't available to most parents as typically such testing is provided through the school system)
If you have appropriate evidence to support your implied position, I'd be interested in reading them.
Thanks/Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before