answer the question instead of giving me bullshit.
Advertisement
by Scomagia » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:58 pm
Mystic Warriors wrote:Kowani wrote: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.
by The Batorys » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:00 pm
Scomagia wrote:Mystic Warriors wrote:
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.
by Shofercia » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:00 pm
The Tomerlands wrote:Kowani wrote: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.
San Marlindo wrote: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.
by Ru- » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:06 pm
by Conserative Morality » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:06 pm
Scomagia wrote:Mystic Warriors wrote:
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.
by Conserative Morality » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:08 pm
Ru- wrote: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.
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.
by Mystic Warriors » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:15 pm
Scomagia wrote:Mystic Warriors wrote:
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.
by San Marlindo » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:21 pm
Mystic Warriors wrote:Scomagia wrote: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.
"Cold, analytical, materialistic thinking tends to throttle the urge to imagination." - Michael Chekhov
by The Lone Alliance » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:25 pm
Mystic Warriors wrote:Scomagia wrote: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.
by Costa Fierro » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:46 pm
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote: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.
by Dahon » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:52 pm
by Conserative Morality » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:55 pm
Dahon wrote:
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.
by Dahon » Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Dahon wrote:
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'.
by Democratic Empire of Romania » Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:09 pm
by The Batorys » Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:44 pm
Democratic Empire of Romania wrote: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.
by Medwedian Democratic Federation » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:11 am
by Dahon » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:15 am
by Medwedian Democratic Federation » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:20 am
Dahon wrote:Keep in mind that California is currently solidly Democratic and... at times exasperatingly liberal. To talk of a countervailing Republicanism or conservatism is counterfactual.
by Loben » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:21 am
Medwedian Democratic Federation wrote:Dahon wrote: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.
by Cannot think of a name » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:22 am
by Dahon » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:49 am
Medwedian Democratic Federation wrote:Dahon wrote: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.
by Isilanka » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:56 am
by Dahon » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:02 am
Isilanka wrote:*hears talks about the Californian government being leftist or even socialist*
*laughs in European*
by Lamoni » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:09 am
Medwedian Democratic Federation wrote: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?
Licana on the M-21A2 MBT: "Well, it is one of the most badass tanks on NS."
Vortiaganica: Lamoni I understand fully, of course. The two (Lamoni & Lyras) are more inseparable than the Clinton family and politics.
Triplebaconation: Lamoni commands a quiet respect that carries its own authority. He is the Mandela of NS.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bienenhalde, Big Eyed Animation, Bovad, Corporate Collective Salvation, Dayganistan, Emotional Support Crocodile, Hidrandia, Hrstrovokia, Kostane, Lycom, The Kerbal United Republic, The Lone Alliance
Advertisement