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.
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.
Do non-binaries count against the new gender quota?
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
How about those who just believe that discrimination based on gender, age, religion or race is just wrong? Yes, such discrimination still goes on society but you are not going to get rid of it by legally requiring such discrimination in the same way that you cannot get rid of corruption by bribing politicians to take action against it.
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.
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.
are ruled out, too?
It's like they looked over at Zimbabwe and said "Hold my beer..."