California passes gender-quota laws

[Loben]

how is this fixing apparent inequality?

So having no women on a board of directors is not inequality?

answer the question instead of giving me bullshit.

[Scomagia]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/30/california-law-sets-gender-quotas-corporate-boardrooms/1482883002/

California’s finally hit that next level of liberalism, government interference in business to ensure equality. Now, this is obviously a major win for the SJW lobby, not so much for anyone already on those boards. Beyond the normal criticism of “sexism!”, which I think someone else can handle much better than me, I think this sets a dangerous precedent. Seriously Jerry Brown, what were you thinking?

I get really tired of people using Liberalism likes a problem. And trying to fix inequality is not a bad thing.

Not all inequalities are a result of discrimination, you know. Inequalities don't necessarily need to be eliminated, inequalities based on discrimination do. It's not evident that the scarcity of women in executive positions is entirely or even mostly a result of discrimination.

[The Batorys]

I get really tired of people using Liberalism likes a problem. And trying to fix inequality is not a bad thing.

Not all inequalities are a result of discrimination, you know. Inequalities don't necessarily need to be eliminated, inequalities based on discrimination do. It's not evident that the scarcity of women in executive positions is entirely or even mostly a result of discrimination.

[Shofercia]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/30/california-law-sets-gender-quotas-corporate-boardrooms/1482883002/

California’s finally hit that next level of liberalism, government interference in business to ensure equality. Now, this is obviously a major win for the SJW lobby, not so much for anyone already on those boards. Beyond the normal criticism of “sexism!”, which I think someone else can handle much better than me, I think this sets a dangerous precedent. Seriously Jerry Brown, what were you thinking?

This isn't SJW related. Even if you don't agree, there's nothing wrong with it morally, it's not like they are censoring anyone. And no, SJW rhetoric and liberalism aren't the same thing. Do your research please.

Except they are censoring men. If a boardroom has all men, and a male candidate is more qualified than a female candidate, they must now higher the female candidate. Hence the man's promotion is being censored. This is dumb.

I think board rooms should be purged and their assets seized by the people.

You have outleftied us both

Waterboard the board rooms!

If the new legislation mandates that quotas be established over the individualized consideration of board members based on merit and if it also is justified by th state on the grounds of combating non-specific societal discrimination (as indeed many of the posters in this thread seem to imply), it is unconstitutional. That was the crux of UC vs Bakke. Hopefully the Supreme Court will strike it down when the inevitable lawsuits ensue.

Taking into account one's race, gender, etc as one factor among many in their appointment to xxx position is constitutional.

Appointing them purely on the basis of their race or gender without citing a need to redress a case specific act of past discrimination is not.

Oh yeah, Kavanaugh might get confirmed. It'd be interesting is this is the first case he gets.

[Ru-]

I think the concerns that were brought up by current female executives should have been taken more seriously. While there is no doubt that there are real benefits to more diversity in corporate leadership, there are better ways to address the glass ceiling problem then an arbitrary quota. I think it'll be alot harder for qualified female executives to be taken seriously and get the credit for thier accomplishment that they deserve now, everyone will just point at the quota.

[Conserative Morality]

I get really tired of people using Liberalism likes a problem. And trying to fix inequality is not a bad thing.

Not all inequalities are a result of discrimination, you know. Inequalities don't necessarily need to be eliminated, inequalities based on discrimination do. It's not evident that the scarcity of women in executive positions is entirely or even mostly a result of discrimination.

w e w

[Conserative Morality]

I think the concerns from female executives should have been taken more seriously. While there is no doubt that there are real benefits to more diversity in corporate leadership, there are better ways to address the glass ceiling problem then an arbitrary quota.

Agreed.

I think it'll be alot harder for qualified female executives to be taken seriously and get the credit for thier accomplishment that they deserve now, everyone will just point at the quota.

Disagree.

Excuses will be made regardless. As most women who have been in any kind of position above entry level (and many in entry-level positions) can tell you, having affirmative action blamed for one's success is common even in the absence of affirmative action policies.

There's already a narrative of denigration of female achievement in many of these places, and in society as a whole. This will neither add nor subtract considerably from it.

[Mystic Warriors]

I get really tired of people using Liberalism likes a problem. And trying to fix inequality is not a bad thing.

Not all inequalities are a result of discrimination, you know. Inequalities don't necessarily need to be eliminated, inequalities based on discrimination do. It's not evident that the scarcity of women in executive positions is entirely or even mostly a result of discrimination.

All inequalities need to be eliminated, its just a matter of how.

[San Marlindo]

Not all inequalities are a result of discrimination, you know. Inequalities don't necessarily need to be eliminated, inequalities based on discrimination do. It's not evident that the scarcity of women in executive positions is entirely or even mostly a result of discrimination.

All inequalities need to be eliminated, its just a matter of how.

A certain degree of inequality in various spheres is inevitable in every society.

[The Lone Alliance]

Not all inequalities are a result of discrimination, you know. Inequalities don't necessarily need to be eliminated, inequalities based on discrimination do. It's not evident that the scarcity of women in executive positions is entirely or even mostly a result of discrimination.

All inequalities need to be eliminated, its just a matter of how.

That's scientifically impossible.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't see a problem with it. If the studies are correct, it might actually help those companies in the long run to have at least one woman in the board room.

The benefits of having women in the boardroom are so minimal that it's not statistically significant. The business case for diversity is that it has no effect whatsoever, and thus diversity is purely for ethical reasons.

[Dahon]

how is this fixing apparent inequality?

So having no women on a board of directors is not inequality?

Would you like half a board filled with people who know jack shit, or a board filled to bursting with people with knowledge and experience requisite for their position?

By no means am I demeaning women executives, but come on -- ability and compatibility must come first before sexual characteristics.

[Conserative Morality]

So having no women on a board of directors is not inequality?

Would you like half a board filled with people who know jack shit, or a board filled to bursting with people with knowledge and experience requisite for their position?

By no means am I demeaning women executives, but come on -- ability and compatibility must come first before sexual characteristics.

Problem: the current situation favors neither ability and compatibility nor sexual characteristics.

Let me rephrase that: 'nor sexual characteristics other than being born male'.

[Dahon]

Would you like half a board filled with people who know jack shit, or a board filled to bursting with people with knowledge and experience requisite for their position?

By no means am I demeaning women executives, but come on -- ability and compatibility must come first before sexual characteristics.

Problem: the current situation favors neither ability and compatibility nor sexual characteristics.

Let me rephrase that: 'nor sexual characteristics other than being born male'.

The problem here, as I see it, is that the whole process of selecting a boardroom executive is subjective: you may know how to run a company competently and in cooperation with others, but is it the same thing as being emotionally and otherwise prepared to do so?

Now the current system may lead to abuses of power by those who wield it within the uppermost echelons of any given structure, but shoehorning female executives who may be incapable of doing their job is not the solution. (Nor do I think the current way of doing things is problematic, even if it has undesirable side effects that play upon the subjective nature of selection.)

[Democratic Empire of Romania]

If by absurdity, a company would have unqualified woman workers, they would have to put an unexperienced woman instead of a hard-working, qualified man ?


Ok, California. Here goes your relevancy.

[The Batorys]

If by absurdity, a company would have unqualified woman workers, they would have to put an unexperienced woman instead of a hard-working, qualified man ?


Ok, California. Here goes your relevancy.

Keep dreaming.

[Medwedian Democratic Federation]

As always, it’s a majority giving in to the demands of a leftist snowflake minority whose feelings it allegedly hurt. There are numerous studies saying that gender quotas are BS, and there are lots of women saying gender quotas are BS.

California is a big leftist social justice playground for deranged ex-hippies who want to unload their turd of “check your privilege” and “EQUALITY NOOOOWWWWE!!1!11!!! *screech*” onto hardworking, God-fearing people.

This attitude will never take us anywhere. It is extremely dangerous to listen to such toxic people as those who are in the Californian government right now.

What will be next? A ban on Christianity and turning all churches into Mosques? Forcing all to become vegetarian? Taking away the right to vote from white men? Only allowing pederasts (e.g. homoperverts) to serve in certain positions?

[Dahon]

Keep in mind that California is currently solidly Democratic and... at times exasperatingly liberal. To talk of a countervailing Republicanism or conservatism is counterfactual.

[Medwedian Democratic Federation]

Keep in mind that California is currently solidly Democratic and... at times exasperatingly liberal. To talk of a countervailing Republicanism or conservatism is counterfactual.

The Californian government is leftist. This does not necessarily apply to the disenfranchised populance.

In fact, the whole two-party system is a scam. It’s basically “the tail shaking the dog”, tricking people to believe there is an actual democracy in America.

There is none. The Rothschild/Zionist elites have already taken over the country decades ago.

[Loben]

Keep in mind that California is currently solidly Democratic and... at times exasperatingly liberal. To talk of a countervailing Republicanism or conservatism is counterfactual.

The Californian government is leftist. This does not necessarily apply to the disenfranchised populance.

In fact, the whole two-party system is a scam. It’s basically “the tail shaking the dog”, tricking people to believe there is an actual democracy in America.

There is none. The Rothschild/Zionist elites have already taken over the country decades ago.

what

[Cannot think of a name]

If by absurdity, a company would have unqualified woman workers, they would have to put an unexperienced woman instead of a hard-working, qualified man ?


Ok, California. Here goes your relevancy.

Keep dreaming.

I never tire of hearing about our impending doom.

[Dahon]

Keep in mind that California is currently solidly Democratic and... at times exasperatingly liberal. To talk of a countervailing Republicanism or conservatism is counterfactual.

The Californian government is leftist. This does not necessarily apply to the disenfranchised populance.

In fact, the whole two-party system is a scam. It’s basically “the tail shaking the dog”, tricking people to believe there is an actual democracy in America.

There is none. The Rothschild/Zionist elites have already taken over the country decades ago.

... OK. Ignoring the baiting (I've been through enough rabbit holes and am staring into an abyssal insomnia), who are the members of this "disenfranchised populace", why are they "disenfranchised", and why would they lean... conservative? let's try that... if the franchise is given back to them?

[Isilanka]

*hears talks about the Californian government being leftist or even socialist*
*laughs in European*

[Dahon]

*hears talks about the Californian government being leftist or even socialist*
*laughs in European*

Gotta dance with what brung ya, or something less mangled in Texan English.

[Lamoni]

As always, it’s a majority giving in to the demands of a leftist snowflake minority whose feelings it allegedly hurt. There are numerous studies saying that gender quotas are BS, and there are lots of women saying gender quotas are BS.

California is a big leftist social justice playground for deranged ex-hippies who want to unload their turd of “check your privilege” and “EQUALITY NOOOOWWWWE!!1!11!!! *screech*” onto hardworking, God-fearing people.

This attitude will never take us anywhere. It is extremely dangerous to listen to such toxic people as those who are in the Californian government right now.

What will be next? A ban on Christianity and turning all churches into Mosques? Forcing all to become vegetarian? Taking away the right to vote from white men? Only allowing pederasts (e.g. homoperverts) to serve in certain positions?

*** Official warning for baiting ***

You can talk about the LGBT community without addressing them as "homoperverts." I highly suggest that you read and comply with the rules, otherwise your time here will be short.