California Has a New Law: No More All-Male Boards (cnn.com) 810
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.
Virtue signalling (Score:5, Funny)
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?!
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to simply choosing the best candidate for the job instead of meeting quotas?
...And what about simply letting the shareholders decide? Whatever the state owns, they can do with as they please, but ONLY shareholders should decide who they want on their board---the government shouldn't say who is and who isn't eligible to be on the board :-/
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Informative)
The London Pride march this year saw scenes where an activist lesbian group hijacked the front of the parade, laying down in front of it, protesting "trans activism" which they claimed "erased lesbianism". They then led the march after refusing to move from the head of the parade, so spectators were bemused to see anti-trans posters and slogans leading the LGBTQ+ event...
You literally cannot make this shit up.
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one thoroughly enjoying the fracturing that is happening in this movement?
The only thing that makes me sad here is that people who are truly fighting for us being decent to each other get a bad rep by proxy...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fundamental inconsistencies are too great for this dynamic not to collapse on itself sooner than later. It's one thing to badger conservative straight white men into saying "ma'am" through clenched teeth when some bald potato of a man in a dress [4pcdn.org] walks up to the counter, but it's different when you start badgering the very people who are used to doing the badgering. Feminists are now faced with a world where all the women's sports records are held by dudes [thegatewaypundit.com] and a lesbian who won't suck cock is called a [dailywire.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"Am I the only one thoroughly enjoying the fracturing that is happening in this movement?"
No you are not, but the fact you have company doesn't say anything good about you.
Re: Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-trans bigotry from the left at a Pride March should shock and appal you. Why doesn't it?
Re: Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we also have laws requiring firefighters to be 50% female? And construction workers, truck drivers and lumberjacks?
How about sports teams? Shouldn't they be mixed, too?
That would be affirmative action but I don't see many people campaigning for it. They only want to cherry pick the 'good' stuff for themselves.
(although I'm not sure what's so great about working all the hours that a big company CEO works, maybe the reason there's not many female CEOs is that they're not psychopathic enough)
Re: Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said it before, we only have true equality when we have an equal mix of male and female garbage collectors.
Re: Virtue signalling (Score:4, Interesting)
If we're going to pass laws like this then shouldn't we require an equal mix of POTUS?
That would mean that the next election would require only women candidates.
I find myself strangely attracted to that idea, not because they're women but because it would throw the status-quo into turmoil.
Re: Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not saying 50%.
Yet.
And why only women? Why not one black, one Asian, one Hispanic, all required by law?
(and with a minimum mixture of gender identities among them, of course)
I can see one immediate problem: If there's only three members on the board then which group gets priority? There's obviously no answer to that so we have to require a minimum number of board members, too. Make sure nobody is left out.
The problem with left-wing politics is that there isn't a clear line which says "we went too far" when you cross it.
Re: Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Virtue signalling (Score:4, Insightful)
It is to overcome a specific obstacle which is assumed and not proven. A measure like this is wrong, the state has no business dictating to shareholders (who can be men or women without prejudice) who they want on their board of directors. It is also extremely sexist, they aren't requiring gender diversity they are specifically attacking males in favor of females.
Most importantly this is a LAW, it is forever, and it has encoded sexism in law. The logic being used to justify it doesn't allow room for the possibility your "specific obstacle" will ever be behind us.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with left-wing politics is that there isn't a clear line which says "we went too far" when you cross it.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently my post is scored 20% flamebait and 20% overrated. For the sake of argument let's discount the overrated and assume that moderation is genuine.
There are people out there for whom merely disagreeing with them on this topic, merely contradicting their narrative is incitement. It angers them so much that they can't allow it to be discussed or visible at +2. This is a problem for Slashdot because it prevents effective debate by hiding half of the argument and discouraging people from expressing those
Re: Virtue signalling (Score:4, Interesting)
Your post is scored 5 insightful. My post is scored 2 Troll.
""Most importantly this is a LAW, it is forever"
That's not how laws work."
That is exactly how laws work, at least by default.
"There are people out there for whom merely disagreeing with them on this topic, merely contradicting their narrative is incitement. It angers them so much that they can't allow it to be discussed or visible at +2."
Yes, and your posting history over the last couple days suggests you may be one of them or you might just be trolling. They are the people modding you up and me down.
Your post contained a vague undefined reference to a "specific objective" as well as a suggestion without any logical support that a debate could not be had.
I extrapolated based on the actual underlying agenda in the story for the sake of debate and provided logical refutation as well as specific facts. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong but I logically supported my statements and someone who disagreed is welcome to refute them logically.
In any sane world your post would have been correctly moderated as a troll or flamebait because you were vague, attacked the integrity of the forum, and provided no coherent rationale or logical support for any position. What your lean or position is on the actual topic being discussed is beside the point. You added no value to the arguments of any position.
Is an operation even necessary ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Does it really work like that in California? Most places it's not just enough to declare you are female, you have to actually live as a female. Shave your beard, wear women's clothing, change your name etc.
Cite? This may be practice, but I'd be really surprised to see it as codified law anywhere, and I'd love to read the statute if it is. I can imagine someone trying to draft such a law getting wrapped around the axle in all the corner cases and details. It seems extremely difficult to craft.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
And what about companies that only have female board members? Shouldn't they be required to have at least one male board member? If there's no such requirement, this law is clearly sexist and can probably be legally challenged on that ground.
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
So no: there will be no law that says you can't have an all female board, because there's no widespread bias against men when selecting board members. The all-male boards aren't the problem, the bias is. And once that has been addressed, presumably the law will be repealed and it'll be ok again to have an all male (or all female) board.
With that said, I am not so sure if there really is a significant bias against women in this day and age. There are other factors that affect a woman's career differently than a man's, both cultural and biological. And I don't think we should compensate for any natural disadvantages certain groups may or may not have, because then you're definitely doing away with selecting the best person for the job. I also don't know if affirmative action laws are terribly effective at addressing that bias, if it exists.
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
You can try to find arguments as much as you like, and I do understand your point, but in this day and age you simply cannot make laws that apply to one sex but not the other. If you want to abolish sexism, don't use sexist laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if you can't use sexist laws to combat sexism (which is a fair point), what alternatives are there? Many people keep saying "this law sucks", but I don't see anyone providing an alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about "do nothing"? If a company excludes the best qualified workers for whatever reason - gender, ethnicity, hair color - then the company and its shareholders suffer the consequences of poorer overall performance. That's a choice that should be allowed - as adults, we all know actions have consequences, and we live with our choices. (And the high-perfoming people who were excluded can go someplace else, maybe even form a competitor, and improve that business's results. Payback time.)
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Funny)
Every board must have people of both genders.
"Both" genders? Are you implying there's only two?
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
If you take affirmative action to its logical conclusion, what you end up with is South Africa. Having dismantled apartheid in 1994, South Africa has turned the tables on its white citizens and has been actively oppressing them for 2 decades. Any white person that had the means to leave has already left. And now the country is falling apart. The government is hopelessly corrupt, murder rates are through the roof, and the economy is declining year over year.
Did one cause the other? I wouldn't know. But I do wonder, if we try too hard to put unqualified people in charge, would we also end up in such a downward spiral?
South Africa is going full retard (Score:5, Funny)
It's like they looked over at Zimbabwe and said "Hold my beer..."
Re: (Score:3)
History has proven this, but we forget. This is exactly what happened in Russia. There was inequality (wealth), so those with resources "obviously" must have been hoarding it--they were biased against those with less. So those in power seized the wealth and imprisoned the farmers (Kulaks) in 1918-1933+[1]. This resulted in the Kulaks slaughtering
Re: (Score:3)
this one is probably made around the idea that women are being excluded from boards for reasons other than a lack of qualities relevant to the job.
This has the same problem as third party presidential candidates. Most presidential candidates are governors first. Because there are no libertarian or green party governors, it's hard to have decent presidential candidates. Most fortune 500 board members and CEOs were previously board members and CEOs on smaller companies. Starting at the top doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
forcing companies to take on women in such roles will reduce such sexism over time to the point where affirmative action isn't needed anymore.
A noble goal in theory but in practice this never happens. Once enshrined, such race/gender/whatever quotas become permanent fixtures, as no politician has the courage to suggest they be removed. The cries of "they want a return to sexism/bigotry/whatever" would be so deafening they'd be drummed out of office before the ink was dry on the proposal. This is why such laws should never be implemented in the first place.
For that matter, how do you think this "diversity quota" appointee to the board will be v
Imagine a room full of Dilbertian PHB's (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Imagine a room full of Dilbertian PHB's (Score:4)
Indeed, that is the reality, and I applaud your comment.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying merit is based on a number of factors, including getting along, gaining approval from others, and gaining trust?
Yea, that seems about right.
Oh, and wanting the same things as the others? Yea, that too.
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
Lol choosing the best candidate. Listen to yourself.
95% of the time on slashdot we rightly bitch and moan about how incredibly shit upper management is. You know making short term decisions that benefit them personally and not the company. But now it's forced not to be all men all of a sudden they were all the best people for the job.
So the your loaded about "what happened to simply choosing the best candidate?": that was never the case and we both know it.
Re: (Score:3)
You are assuming by default that the women will do a better job than the men do simply because they are women. What will you say if the women end up making even WORSE decisions?
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:5, Insightful)
No we're saying that the best candidates *should* be chosen...
The best candidates are often not being chosen currently, and still won't be chosen under these new laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome, that's where all the people who know how to have fun go!
Re: All "virtue signalling" means is (Score:3)
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?
Re:Virtue signalling (Score:4, Insightful)
So with the new law, they'll hire a rich white dude with the proper connections, and his wife.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Yes, I am a white male.
who the fuck cares what you think?
Who even told you, that you can speak?
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
If only 's/witnessed/fought against/g'
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
Situation 1: female co-worker discloses her salary to me. I witness her being discriminated, because I know of another male colleague with a similar function and less skill who is better paid, but I can't do anything about it because salaries are supposed to be confidential (in my country, at least). I can't fight against it, because it's based on proof obtained illegally, so-to-speak.
Situation 2: Minority fellas can't get jobs because employers don't trust them. Authorities themselves turn a blind eye. What am I supposed to do, start a holy-one-man crusade? A decade ago I helped one guy I knew (minority) get hired as a first level support in the company I work for, now he's a manager and makes more than I do. He probably wouldn't have been hired if I hadn't vouched for him. he doesn't know it and I won't tell him because it was not a big deal. But yes, discrimination towards minorities is a thing.
Re: (Score:3)
If only 's/witnessed/fought against/g'
Which is what California thinks it is doing.
Your "fighting" is often just injustice of a different flavor.
Re: (Score:3)
Laws such as this not only don't eliminate discrimination, they directly cause it.
Companies will now be forced to appoint women to the board even if there are no qualified women available, and they will have to do this by discriminating against any qualified men who were available.
If there are qualified women available then they would have been appointed anyway:
A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards
Even without being forced to do so, it seems these companies already appoint women to their boards if female candidates are available and suitably q
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
I sat in a training meeting, in a government agency, and a ranking member (yes, female) made the statement, "I majored in sociology and I know for a fact that all of the worlds problems are caused by white males." It was quite clear that the men in the room were not to object.
That was the place where I was marked down for not socializing. My supervisor even made the comment, during the review, "after work we all go to curves (a women only gym) you don't seem to even try to take part." As a comment, every day I went to the officers gym; however, the women in the department, including my supervisor, didn't use it, preferring to go to curves. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with curves, or other single gender facilities. I was bothered by being marked down for not using them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is sexist (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is sexist (Score:4, Insightful)
Should be placed due to qualifications, not gender.
Company upper upper management being based on qualifications? Yes that would be a vewy novel idea. Let me know when that every happened.
Re:This is sexist (Score:4, Insightful)
Replacing one bogus metric with another is going to accomplish what exactly? You don't really think that this will allow women to become part of the "good old boys" network, do you? All we're really going to see is the woman who has to go fetch the coffee for the men gets paid more, else, same shit as today.
Here we go... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a good start, BUT (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Proportional representation scares the hell out of the establishment (right and left). It will always be dead in the water.
Re:It's a good start, BUT (Score:5, Insightful)
Proportional to what? You probably mean proportional to the general population. For tech companies that should scare the hell out of anyone since what graduates from university is not a proportional representation of the general population at all....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a good start, BUT (Score:5, Insightful)
Asians are more likely to enroll at college, and more likely to succeed there.
Asians are a minority in the US and other western countries, and yet they are highly successful.
The success of asians shows that there is no inherent discrimination by whites against minorities, if that were the case then asians wouldn't be doing well either. The fact is opportunities are there for everyone, and it is these other minority groups which are failing to grasp them - in many cases because their culture and attitude is self destructive.
The same can be said of the world in general. While many white countries are leading world powers either economically or militarily, several asian countries are up there too but there are no african countries of any great significant on the world stage. There are also many small and insignificant white countries.
And furthermore (Score:2, Funny)
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.
What about non-binaries? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do non-binaries count against the new gender quota?
Re: (Score:2)
Do non-binaries count against the new gender quota?
They get two seats/votes
Re: (Score:2)
Non-binaries oppress post-brain uploading transhumanists.
Re: (Score:3)
Brave New World (Score:3)
Aldous Huxley would definitely be laughing and saying he told us so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aldous Huxley was a communist and user of entheogens. He was a proponent of sustainable living and production, environmentalism, and cooperative living. Also a good buddy of Timothy Leary. I'm surprised you think you can predict his opinion on anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew Aldous Huxley. I worked with Aldous Huxley. Aldous Huxley was a friend of mine, and I can tell you, sir... that I'm standin' next to a mountain, choppin' down with the edge o' my hand.
How patronizing! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Why stop at gender? Why not go full intersectionalist and demand that each board contain a proportionate amount of blacks and gays and Muslims and trans and Eskimos and vegans? Half of the country voted for Trump: maybe half of CA boards should be conservatives?
Re: (Score:2)
We don't say Eskimos. They are Inuit or Aleut.
Re: (Score:3)
Unintended Consequences (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Most corporations in US incorporated in Delaware (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Easy workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
Common in European countries? (Score:3, Informative)
"Though similar measures are common in European countries" - Er... no, they're not. There is no remotely similar law in the EU.
Everyone should just come out at women... (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
... No really. Just say "I identify as a woman".
Game over.
I think you should definitely try to get this in front of a judge.
I didn't really read the rest of your post; I'm sure it's excellent, so much so that I think you could probably represent yourself. I hear judges absolutely love it when people find cute loopholes to the law.
Oppsite Effects (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What About One Man? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] of the 14th Amendment.
Re:What About One Man? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexist crap! (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, but it promotes sexism. Any woman that now manages to get on the board will be dismissed as the "token bitch", even if she rightfully has that position due to qualification and hard work.
More obscure consequence (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
If women had balls, this would be a kick to them (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I wish it was blacks or hispanians (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
All female boards? (Score:5, Interesting)
If it works for bathrooms, it works for boardrooms (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Well gosh, if only we had jjudges and jury people to apply human judgement to trickier cases.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Will boards consisting of 5 women be required to add 2 men?
No, but they will be automatically awarded any state contract they apply for regardless of qualifications or bids.
Equality Theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure that some CEO secretaries will be promoted to "director for coffee making" with the express job of "sit there and shut up".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)