Slashdot Mirror
California Has a New Law: No More All-Male Boards (cnn.com)
Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards. From a report: That's according to a new law, enacted Sunday, which requires publicly traded firms in the state to place at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 -- or face a penalty. It also requires companies with five directors to add two women by the end of 2021, and companies with six or more directors to add at least three more women by the end of the same year. It's the first such law on the books in the United States, though similar measures are common in European countries. The measure was passed by California's state legislature last month. And it was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday, along with a trove of other bills that look to "protect and support women, children and working families," the governor's office said in a release. A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC.
What happened to simply choosing the best candidate for the job instead of meeting quotas?
And did that law seriously just assume the gender of someone sitting on the board of directors?!
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Yes, I am a white male.
Yes I have witnessed discrimination against women.
Yes, I have also witnessed discrimination against men.
Yes, I have witnessed discrimination against minorities too.
Yes, I do believe measures must be taken to eliminate discrimination.
No, I do not think laws such as this would fall under the measures to eliminate discrimination” category, nor that they would do any good.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Should be placed due to qualifications, not gender.
This is the same misconception I see time an time again.
Equal representation does not equal not being sexist. It is actually just more sexism as you have to fill the role taking into account their gender.
There is also a second sexist thing that is going on, as long as it sexism is against the gender that is thought to be in the wrong. This type of sexism is deemed ok. I strongly disagree with this. It just more sexism.
Equality is for all, not just one gender.
On one side, we have those who believe that the "best" candidate should always get the job. They don't really know what "best" means, because they clearly keep hiring the guy who is not the "best", but he's a great guy from a great family from the best schools, so there.
One the other side, we have those who believe that the government should phone them up with a great job while they finish another game level and devour another bag of Cheetos in mom's basement.
There, that about sums up the flaming about to happen here.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
fairness and justice will only be reached when 3 of those seats are mandated to be filled by African-Americans, and 3 are reserved for Hispanic Americans.
Furthermore it is now required to have at least one moron, one down syndrome, one bozo the clown, one batman, one hippie, one streetsweeper, one biker, one dog and one skeleton on the board.
Merits are overrated according to people without merit.
It seems this will clash with other laws that basically say that anyone who says they are a woman is presumed to be a woman. Could it happen that a California company states that board members Chris and Pat are women, Chris and Pat say they are women, but the state disagrees and says they are men?
Do non-binaries count against the new gender quota?
Aldous Huxley would definitely be laughing and saying he told us so.
What could possibly be more insulting to women than to suggest that they cannot negotiate power on their own as individuals? What's next? CA demands that VC invest at most 50% of their capital investment into companies started by men? These people need to be driven out of Sacramento with pitchforks and blowtorches.
Mixed race woman.... ?
[($)]
Will boards consisting of 5 women be required to add 2 men?
Watch as a bunch of businesses re-incorporate in another state. The politicians in Sacramento haven't figured out that a lot of businesses are not physically tied to California. My state already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country and the fees are never ending.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I am really looking forward to the lawsuits deciding whether a post-op or pre-op transgender person (is transgender the right term to use? I honestly don't know) is one gender or the other as it comes to sitting on the board for some company.
Is an operation even necessary? I mean can't a person merely say they personally identify as a female and as per California values that's the end of the story, the person's declaration MUST be honored.
If claiming a female identity is all that is necessary to use the women's restroom, then that is all that is necessary to meet the quota for the boardroom.
You actually think board selection is a meritocracy? The further one goes from doing measurable tasks, the more social issues play into selection. The office is chock full of politics and social maneuvering. I can tell you boatloads of stories.
Table-ized A.I.
If "choosing according to merit" magically selects only straight white dudes, your definition of "merit" badly needs examining because you're basically saying that straight white dudes are somehow objectively superior.
Nope. Its saying that only straight wide dudes were being properly prepared. Mandating board seats does not fix the qualification problem, it merely is equality theatre. Nothing more. A placebo for the dimwitted. But if you fail to see this its not your fault, you weren't properly educated and prepared to understand reality.
Want to fix the actual problem rather than have equality theatre, then make sure young women get properly educated, trained, mentored, etc and then we'll have honest actual diversity. Which is sort of happening, female enrollment in MBA programs is getting better and better each year.
Just get two male members to identify as female. It would hold the courts up for months.
"Though similar measures are common in European countries" - Er... no, they're not. There is no remotely similar law in the EU.
Are the powerful, white, greying power elites really that mobile that they'd up and move to another state? It happens, but not the way you're imagining. A smart person would check out the lay of the land before making a knee-jerk, anger-based life change.
Actually a smart person would know that you can incorporate in Delaware, become a client of a Delaware attorney (i.e. give him/her a modest retainer payment), pay for a service that is your legal mail drop and answering service in Delaware (a modest annual fee), and then you can run your business from and have offices in whatever state you want including California. Most US corporations, in general and fortune 500, are incorporated in Delaware.
... No really. Just say "I identify as a woman".
Game over.
why? Because the inter-sectional Marxists have swallowed a whole lot of contradictions and conflicting interest groups in their quest for power.
Opposing forces have behaved in a dumb "reactionary" pattern where they don't really change what they're doing but merely cite their disagreement with things. This is idiotic.
The point of intersectionalism is to conflate as many interest groups as possible with analogs of classical "class struggle".
The way to fight this is to not treat these various ploys separately and not appreciate the wider context but rather to hammer at the very glue that holds these groups together... which is generally a deceit that suggests that if you give X power then all these contradictory interest groups will get what they want.
So the black power groups will get what they want, the feminist groups will get what they want, the islamic organizations will get what they want, the hispanic groups will get what they want, the trans activists will get what they want.
It isn't possible to satisfy these agendas at the same time. Which is why in practice they're not satisfied at all. Look at Detroit. It went from being a mecca of blue collar success to a warren of endless crack dens. But the people that took power when that started are still in power.
Weird, huh? The only people that will ultimately get power are a few elites and some politicians and some political party here or there might pick up power. But the endless ranks of dupes that fuel this nonsense will get nothing.
Women will get nothing.
name the racial group will get nothing.
The various agitating ethnic religious factions will get nothing.
It is a big silly game.
And THAT is the weakness.
By declaring yourself a woman, you hammer on one of the more glaring incompatibilities in "intersectionalism" which is the conflict between Feminism and Trans-sexualism.
The Feminist movement holds that all gender norms are social constructs and that women should be advanced above men generally to address historic favoring of men.
The trans movement holds that gender is biological and that one can "feel" like a woman inside or a man or whatever indifferent to social constructs. And that one can shift between being "male" or "female" simply by citing yourself as one or the other. A medical procedure is not required, nor is changing your sexual partners, nor is changing your preferred clothing, etc. So a 55 year old guy in a suit can just say he's a woman according to the Trans sexual movement. He doesn't have to do anything besides that.
The feminists have predictably been giving ground to the Trans movement even though they make up at best something like .01 percent of the population or something. It is a pretty common tell with intersectionalism that individual interest groups will always subordinate their interests when they come into conflict with the collective intersectional power structure. This has already lead several feminist conventions to stop performing the vagina monologues. And quite a few of these things will have it openly cited that "not all women have vaginas".
This is the weakness of intersectionalism. The greediness of it to gather too many conflicting interests under one banner.
So don't attack any of the hydra heads. Attack the body that connects them. The hydra heads are endless. A giant waste of time to argue with any of these interest groups directly. Rather go after what gives them the national thrust they have... break up the alliances by forcing them into conflict with each other.
Short of that, intersectionalism will continue until the people primary interested in their own personal power have total control over everything... and then basically tyranny until systemic corruption and inefficiency destroys the society.
Either/or.
Here some zealot for the cause may tell me that a zillion contradictory interests can be satisfied at the same time. Not without divine intervention, bucko. Only one planet and one reality. The oppression pyramid is a pyramid scheme. Wise up.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
These types of laws have the opposite effect. Women on these boards will be seen as only having the position because the laws demand it, so they won't be taken seriously. This is a blow to female advancement, not an improvement.
It'll also stifle new companies. A group of male friends won't be able to form a public company if they can't find a female to help. And where is the corresponding law which says all female boards need a male member? I wish people in the government used their brains more for the overall benefit of the population rather than their own benefit.
Fines of $100K for first breach and $300K for subsequent breaches. Pfft just pay the fine - cheaper in the long run in many cases. Also, what's to stop the companies that do comply from making up some spurious board role that has no purpose and appointing a woman with no interest in the company who will stay away from any decision making (ie wives of the current male directors).
Bonkers.
If the law doesn't also require at least one man on a board of directors, I don't see this passing a challenge that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Yes there is a male-only culture in many places but this just replaces that with the same plus a token female - and legally enforcing a gender based agenda at that.
And that my friends (and enemies) is inherently sexist!
I got censored from the Guardian for pointing out that a non-white female writer who won a Hugo would never know if she was the best, or merely the best available woman writer. In the same way a female director will never know if she is on the board because she is competent, or merely making up the numbers...
So every woman from now on that actually manages to climb the corporate ladder and punch through the glass ceiling will be dismissed as the "quota bitch". Great work, feminists, turn your own movement of empowerment where women were supposed to become self-confident and self-reliant into a social program that reeks more like a hand-up for handicapped people who can't accomplish anything themselves.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
May I introduce our board? This is the CEO, you'll do the negotiation with him. The other goons back there are the token black guy, token woman, token genderfluid, token nonchristian, token ..., don't bother talking to them, they have no idea what we're doing here, they were just the cheapest idiots we could hire for the job.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ya know how every time some Republican senator goes on a rant about the homosexuals, sooner or later he's caught in a public bathroom with a dick in his mouth?
Fits that old saying of "Methinks thou dost protest too much"
You got anything you want to "come out" with?
The main problem with how management is selected, is that "merit" is actually an excuse for a system that is really more like aristrocracy. If you force management to add women, it won't change much, since nobles, naturally, have an amount of women roughly equal to those of men. However, if you forced nobles to add people from outside their circles, that would be much more interesting.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Reaching certain positions and mainly in big companies is usually a result of multiple factors which might be easily defined as quite arbitrary. It doesn't seem that a new arbitrary element can hurt much. Picking daughters rather than sons (half kidding, half serious)? Why not? Practically speaking, I don't see any difference. On the other hand, the ideas underlying these actions are kind of worrying (or better: sad), mainly because of not accepting their arbitrary essence and even expecting to be seen as some kind of fair/logical/sensible attitude.
I respect everyone's position on any front for as long as they are happy and don't damage anyone else. I wouldn't find any problem with people defending ideas on these lines in cases like this where there doesn't seem to be any real damage (a bit more of arbitrariness in an intrinsically-arbitrary sub-world). I could even accept actions of this sort to negatively affect me; in the sense of knowing that dealing with arbitrariness or unfairness is part of the far-from-perfect (AKA stupid) world in which we live. I might even accept someone I love/respect (daughter, wife, etc.) to be benefited from something like this, but only for as long as they are fully accepting the reality and are completely honest. I will certainly never respect a person benefiting from arbitrariness/unfairness in any way and trying to show it differently.
Ideally, I prefer to deal with absolute fairness, but I also understand that being 100% fair is very difficult. I even understand that, when being in a relatively advantageous position (and I consider that this is my case, for various reasons like having very clear ideas on many fronts), you see things differently. But a somehow unfair situation without honesty and (self-)awareness is completely unacceptable for me. So, did you get that job because you are woman? Congrats! You played your cards and got what you wanted! Now you can even prove that that decision, although intrinsically arbitrary, wasn't bad by doing an excellent job. But never dare to say me that you did deserve that, because you would be either lying or in-denial. A third alternative could be a woman seriously thinking that she isn't able to compete with others (to get a job like this in a country like the USA) without some extra help; and, in that case, I would just feel pity for her.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
What an incredible stroke of luck that no rich old white man ever got a job on a corporate board because of who he knew, who he blew or whether his family had money and social status.
Yuppers, it was pure ability all the way and nothing else until they started reserving the odd seat for any of the thousands of well-qualified women who never had a shot at such a position.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
If "choosing according to merit" magically selects only straight white dudes, your definition of "merit" badly needs examining because you're basically saying that straight white dudes are somehow objectively superior.
Nope.. Not at all, but the solution to this problem isn't to mandate a fix that only takes sex into account. How nice of you to reduce a woman to her vagina by making her vagina the only qualification required to comply with this law. The law specifies no other requirements, whatsoever. So, to comply with this new law a company could place a woman, who is illiterate, mute, blind, has Down's Syndrome, and is in a persistive vegatative seat, on the board and be in compliance... Because she has a....vagina.
Yep... Amazing isn't it?
That's my problem with "liberalism". At the core it really is hypocritical.
Liberals hate discrimination against women, but will champion discrimination for women.
Liberals demand there are no true differences between the sexes, but will support a law based solely on sex.
Liberals will rail against racial discrimination but will support laws that "fix" that by mandating selections based only upon race (affirmative action)
Sexual and racial discrimination suck. They really do, but the fix is not sexual and racial favoritism. You can't have solutions that mirror the problem. Education is the only way you can really fix a problem.
I'm not racist not because the government told me I couldn't be. I'm not racist because I've worked and been near people of all races and learned that they're just people.. Racism is taught. Tolerance is taught. Mandating legal solutions to social problems rarely works and there tends to be a lot of collateral damage.
Then I guess we'd see more women without kids on boards.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
are ruled out, too?
Cause and effect...
Any non trivial job requires education and training, if a majority of the people who have undertaken such education and training relevant for a given position happen to be straight white dudes then those straight white dudes will be objectively superior to anyone else (including other straight white dudes) who have not undertaken the same education.
If you want others to be qualified then you can't take shortcuts, they have to undergo the same education as the current straight white dudes have - assuming they even want to.
But how about a counter example, various sports such as athletics are dominated by black dudes (sexual preference not known). They are objectively superior at those sports, are you saying that the rules of these sports should be changed to enforce equality in sports?
Men in general are also usually superior at sports, and women usually compete separately from men because they are physically unable to compete directly against men.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
What is wrong with all male boards? And why do the people pushing for this law seem to think correlation is causation, and forcing women in will result in better leadership?
But all female boards are fine.
It is 2018., when on Planet Earth we call it "equality".
Odd-numbered days are reserved for being half Apache helicopter and half Abrams tank... a flying, tanking, confused, multipurpose paperweight the MIC doesn't actually need but built experimentally anyhow for the money.
The Osprey?
No sig today...
Don't forget that it was the left that was responsible for Jim Crow laws, 'separate but equal,' most of modern slavery, and almost all of the defense of slavery in the 1800s.
The left has never been interested in "equal protection under the Law,'" nor in defending the constitution, nor in equal rights for all. Only two democrats in the senate even voted for the abolition of slavery by the 13th amendment. The first vote in the House failed to pass it, with ALL of the House democrats voting AGAINST it.
"...despite numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board are more profitable and productive". Usually those kinds of studies have a predetermined conclusion and they cook their results to fit it.
Y'all realize that this headline/summary contradicts itself right?
This asinine law will not result in all-male boards disappearing from California.. It only targets "publicly traded" companies.. If a corporation is not publicly traded (and the vast majority of them are not) then this law does not even apply.
It's like laws that target companies with 50+ employees. Most companies don't have that many employees...
Nobody is saying men get to the board by being competent, asshole. What we're saying is that this law just enforces sexism the other way.
You don't fix sexism with sexism just like you don't fix racism with racism.
What's amazing to me is that California figured out 20 years ago that affirmative action didn't work and outlawed it.. Now we're going to have sexual affirmative action.
You can't fix social problems with legislation. As many have pointed out, now no woman will really know if she's sitting on a board because she's wanted there or if she is just filling the fucking quota. This is exactly what people said about the aforementioned affirmative action. It didn't help. In fact, in many ways, it made the problem worse. Lots of absolutely qualified people were suspected of getting jobs to fill quotas.
Come up with a tenable solution that isn't sexist in the opposite way and we'll listen to your idea. But suggesting that it's never the case that women don't do some things simply because they don't want to is a break with reality. I've been in jobs that had ZERO women despite honest efforts by the employer to hire them. What do you do when some asshole demands that you hire women when it's possible that they don't want to do a certain type of job or can't meet certain requirements to do a particular job (heavy lifting for example)? Sometimes you can't reduce the requirements..
I am glad there is finally some progress here.
But am sad how much 'stakeholders decide' and 'best candidate' attitude there is on the site.
If you are a white male, you are the most privileged race/sex combination on the planet. Congratulations. All the advantages are yours. If you don't want to concede even a small amount of this power to others, you are probably a white supremacist.
Also, we are in a real world where the vast majority of the positions of power are controller by white males. This means the best candidate will almost always be another white male. All rungs of the ladder to get to board member status favour you heavily, because they are populated by white males. And even if they weren't, you would probably pick the white make candidate, because you trust your own.
So what are the solutions?
1. You are happy with white males always being in power. In which case, fuck off.
2. You attempt to shift these positions of power to being more representative of your society. Here they are talking about a max 20% change away from all white male. I am sorry this scares you so much. I'm also sure you are ready to gang up and bully the poor woman. Your president does it. Your congressmen do it. Your upcoming supreme court judges do it. So relax.
It's like they looked over at Zimbabwe and said "Hold my beer..."
I recently changed my gender to "fucking white male" in order to enjoy the plethora of its privileges and now you tell me that I can't?
Oh well... I guess I'll have to go back to "attack helicopter"
This is the logical outcome of decades of mush headed thinking.
Ideas have consequences.
First the eggheads think it ... then the kids believe it ... then next thing you know some commissar is telling you simultaneously that 1. gender is only a social construct, oh and 2. also you'd better get some ovaries on your corporate board.
Tokeena. In 3....2...1...
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
What is wrong with all male boards? And why do the people pushing for this law seem to think correlation is causation, and forcing women in will result in better leadership?
Because inventing a "war on women" and then appointing yourself as their politically-convenient protector is all the rage these days. This is not a new story. Invent a crisis then present yourself as the savior. Excoriate anyone who challenges the logic of your action as "part of the problem" in order to marginalize them. The dumb masses fall into line, practically chanting "four legs good, two legs bad" (Animal Farm reference for the literary challenged). The motion passes with a majority -- perhaps even unanimously -- because no politician would risk being cast as "against women" despite the total lack of logic in the bill.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
On one end, we're not supposed to select candidates based on sex, color or religion. On the other end, we're supposed to pick a person based on their sex... What about women fighting their way to the top by having the right skills? do legislators think women are so weak they need to be helped by legislation? In my 29 years working, I just haven't really seen many women that interested by this kind of position and the personal and family sacrifices they entail. So that means that companies will have to pick women out of a small pool, which means they'll do compromises and get the wrong people on the boards and people will then blame these women.. It would be nice if we were able to vote-ban politicians when they come up with something stupid.
because some of those all male boards who created some of the largest and most successful corporations in the history of humanity could have been SOO much better if a vagina sat in a the board room.....
You don't fix sexism with sexism just like you don't fix racism with racism.
How dare you bring logic into this emotional, knee-jerk argument! Don't you know that's sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/arachnophobic/whateverphobic??? You must be an old, rich, white guy and therefore your opinion is automatically invalid!
What's amazing to me is that California figured out 20 years ago that affirmative action didn't work and outlawed it.
And yet, even "outlawed", it is still openly practiced in every nook and cranny it can be wormed into.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
This law will not stand even the simplest of court tests. Most of these big companies take tax breaks from the State, it would be better to tie this to tax breaks and make compliance voluntary. In other words, you get to keep your tax breaks if the board meets the State's expectations. So, no fines, just a loss or gain of bargaining position for breaks.
Yeah, right up until this very moment, money, family connections, social status and pure patrician snobbishness had nothing whatsoever to do who got to sit to sit on the boards of all these corporations. It was a pure merit system all the way, with no reason at all to question whether a board member got his position because he was absolutely the best man for the job.
And, of course, it's not like people who want to keep corporate boards overwhelmingly white and male already question whether any woman appointed to board membership got the job because they earned it rather than slept or "quota-ed" their way into it.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Once you get your own channel, you don't get to complain anymore. Besides Sabado no es gigantico en Gringolandia. Given the choice I would spend my Saturdays in Mexico.
Try watching Korean TV. Nothing but koreans, every now and then you get a european or american character but they are mostly comic relief. Still really good TV.
Excellent plan! So now, the sole woman on the board can safely be referred to as the token female board member (no matter her qualifications).
But where, you may ask, should these companies go to find qualified female candidates??? I'm not too worried. I'm sure the wives, girlfriends, and daughters of the men on the board will do just fine.
Not good, enough, you say? No problem. We just need more laws! Or maybe we can should just have the all-knowing legislative geniuses in power choose the board themselves. Cause, you know, apparently they know best how to run a business.
Am I right???
Might makes right irrelevant.
That and what leftist say about jews/Israel.
But who's counting.
Marx is the closest thing to an intellectual philosophical core the leftists have. But Marx is idiotic and has _failed_ the test of historical predictions.
We'll stop hanging the moron about leftist necks, when they stop repeating his fallacies like they mean something.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This is not 1980. As weird as it may seem, I remember a time when newspapers had separate sections labelled "Jobs for Men" and "Jobs for Women", and any female applicant walking into HR was automatically given a typing test. Women in my generation were having none of that, and the ones entering management (and their successors) have long since climbed the greasy pole to the top.
Have we reached parity? No. Boards are still almost always majority male. And if the law required parity in male/female representation, that would be a huge change. But the law sets a standard that most of California's largest companies already meet. That is no accident. No politician is going to want to piss of Walt Disney.
There are few large companies that might need to add another director or replace the next retiring male director with a female one. But the world is heading for parity anyway; the law basically says you can't remain a statistical outlier.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If this really is a temporary measure to improve the situation for women in the workforce, then the law should contain a baked-in expiration date and verbiage to prevent the slippery-slope of including race/etc. from being tacked on it i.
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
"Okay Bob, we're going to have to ask you to take one for the team..."
Anybody can start a corporation, including women. Why can't we just encourage women start their own businesses? Why force existing businesses to change the way they do things?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
At this point I expect this sort of thing out of California, the big question is how long will these dumb laws either stay on the books or be enforced. In this case I will guess until Business decides to pack up and move states with less authoritarian state governments.
That ofcourse is just blatant moronic. So you need to have at least a femame on board, even though she might nog be suitable for the job.. Does this also mean that a board that consists of only females should also have at least one male? because if that's not specified in the law, than the law is disciminiatory.. The board should consist of suitable PEOPLE, not specify a gender..
This is really just a stupid law..
No, that's not what you're saying at all, fucktard.
And what kind of fucking idiot is so stupid they claim "you can't fix social problems with legislation" when they live in a country that outlawed slavery?
Or don't you think slavery was a social problem, you dim-witted moron?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
...with the transgender community?
"I'm a dirty white tomcat, enter my world..."
You should probably pay more attention to places like Sweden, which require a certain percentage of females in their government. So far the Swedes haven't been fucktarded enough to elect anybody like Donald Trump to high office.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
"Nope. Its saying that only straight wide dudes were being properly prepared." So a person's "merit" is based on what others have done to "properly prepare" him? If that is so, then it would seem the solution needs to be broader still. Your take is bigoted and insulting as it discounts the efforts of those who are discriminated against.
Nope, a person's merit is based on their abilities. However one's abilities are often highly correlated to one's training, and the easiest way to create a larger pool of people with the requisite abilities is to train them for those abilities. Waiting for natural born leaders and entrepreneurs to emerge won't work at a large scale; however numerous leaders can be created through training as the Army and Naval Academies demonstrate every year, both male and female leaders in a traditionally male environment.
Your erroneous claim of bigotry and discrimination is failing to see the forest for the trees. The discrimination is primarily based on a failure to properly prepare these individuals, a failure of the educational system and social safety net. The solution to the problem is education and preparation, not mandating token board members who may underperform and reinforce an ignorant stereotype.
And once again, the problem is being corrected in the sense that female enrollment in MBA programs is high and continuing to increase. These young women ARE RECEIVING training and mentoring TODAY. I am suggesting more of what is already working TODAY.
Anthrax already spotted that loophole three decades ago and tried to address it (while also avoiding inconveniencing the sincere) by making the perp commit. It's not a bad solution:
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It is my understanding there is no set size to the number of people a publicly trade company has on their board of directors. There are examples with 3, and I guess replacing one of those members with a woman is feasible, or possibly even adding a 4th member, although an odd number may be desirable for some boards to bread ties so we may see some 3 person boards expand to 5 person by adding two women.
But what if a publicly traded company has 1 member, it's possibly a weird situation and I can't think of any real examples. But it might be allowed by federal laws. What is perhaps more common are boards with 2 people where a publicly traded company started off as a partnership and the minimum ownership requirements of the company bylaws makes practical for only the original founders to still retain a board. This is perhaps more common with older companies that have passed on through a family.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Pretty girls, Viking men, a social safety net Americans don't even dare to dream of, better education than Americans get, health care...and they didn't elect a moronic grifter to the highest office in the land.
Yeah...you could definitely stand to be more like Sweden, but you couldn't deal with actual freedom instead of the sad, empty lie you have allowed to replace it.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
No, of course it wasn't. But up to this point, a woman on a board was someone you'd WANT on your board because you knew that she made it despite all odds against her.
Now, a woman on a board is the token bitch. No matter whether she fought tooth and nail to get there and deserves that position.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Then the problem is not one of gender but of cronyism. Because not being part of the "in-circle" means you will not have a shot at a board position, independent of your gender.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The goalpost is where it was, the problem is not gender but cronyism. The best person for the job would be nice, but we don't get that. Independent of gender. If there was the perfect man for the job, he wouldn't get it either unless he's part of the "in-circle". You could just as well create some sort of mandatory directorate position for a worker and if filled with a man, he would be just as much the water boy for the good old boys network.
The problem is not gender. The problem is the in-circle of "friends" who put each other into relevant positions. You cannot solve this with some bogus "diversity" program, because all you accomplish is creating a token position for the token bitch, the token nig..., the token fag, the token ... you get the idea. And NONE of them will actually be part of the directorate. All you get that way is that some lucky person gets a cushy "sit there, look pretty and shut up" position without power, without influence and most of all without changing jack shit for everyone else.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I see your point, but I think the solution is to make it clear the very idea that "earning" a place on corporate boards is a myth.
It might even make sense to turn the situation on its head, and make the argument that people choosing a woman for such a position will make damned sure she's qualified, because failure to do so will make them look bad. Then contrast such appointments with those of men whose only qualification is that daddy knows the CEO. Or cite cases where the companies only cared about an interlocking relationship with another board, and only one guy was available to attend the meetings of both corps without constantly flying half way 'round the world.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
In this case the problem still isn't sexism but cronyism, since gender doesn't matter. A qualified man would fail as much as a qualified woman if all that matters is whether your daddy knows someone on the board.
In the end, there's only two real possible outcomes. Either, and this would actually already be the best possible outcome, women who have the "right" daddy are now "eligible" to become part of the social club called board, or, and this is actually the more likely and possibly worst outcome, we see some token promotions where board members "promote" their wives with the explicit or implied order to "look pretty and shut up".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, I am not racist because of the words that has been said in 632 A.D.:
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
If you're going to argue that publicly traded firms shouldn't be forced to have women on the boards
I think the primary concern is that they're forced to have women on boards, but not forced to have men on boards. That's sexist.
On top of all that, women are about half of all people. If you can't find competent women, that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're not even trying
Take 'wo' out of that sentence and it's every bit as legitimate and accurate.
Actually, more. Reality is that the pool of male candidates with the experience needed to be a company director is larger than the pool of female candidates.
But only one of those genders gets to demand a seat on the board under Californian law. Sexism.
That's fine. Just dress like a female that crossdresses as a man.
I think we both know how that's going to work out. Does anybody believe Ivanka Trump is qualified to be advising the "leader of the free world" about anything?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Well.... considering the quality of the leader of the free world.....
Snide comments aside, do you think that's not what is going to happen?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Have one board member "identify" as female.
So why not two? for five? Heck, women make up 2/3 of college graduating classes now, why not legislate 60% female boardmembers?
That whole "don't let the door hit you on the way out" was childish when conservatives said it, and it's childish now with you saying it.
Nah, he's mad. It's like bragging about your family and having someone point out your uncle was a child molester.
If you can invent a practical and accurate objective test for that, please do. We all want such.
Otherwise people tend to hire clones of themselves.
Table-ized A.I.
Why not something more pragmatic, which would -in effect- result in the desired outcome? The goal is ostensibly greater representation and prominence of disadvantaged classes of persons. This implementation of a solution is arbitrary and largely naive.
However, one should look at "codetermination" as a much more practical solution. Defined thus:
"A concept that involves the right of workers to participate in management of the companies they work for. The law allows workers to elect representatives (usually trade union representatives) for almost half of the supervisory board of directors. It applies to public and private companies."
On its practical efficacy:
"Economists in the past four decades have produced a large literature trying to determine the effects that codetermination has had on the German economy, and while the results are mixed, more often than not, studies find that codetermination and “works councils” lead to higher wages, less short-termism, greater productivity, even higher levels of income equality (see here for a good overview of recent research). They may, however, reduce profitability and lower returns for shareholders, suggesting they lead to a shift in both power and corporate earnings away from shareholders and toward workers."
Dylan Matthews. (2018) Workers don’t have much say in corporations. Why not give them seats on the board? - Vox. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/1...