California passes gender-quota laws

[Uxupox]

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.

No matter how somebody looks at this. The justification for this asinine and arbitrary quota is both terrible and misandrous.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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.

Deal with it, different political ideologies are allowed to be expressed in this forum. It's not your safe space.

[Mystic Warriors]

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

No matter how somebody looks at this. The justification for this asinine and arbitrary quota is both terrible and misandrous.

Wanting women in positions of power is not hating men. Chill.

[Mystic Warriors]

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.

Keep telling yourself that. Liberals are the vast majority here. Deal with it.

[Uxupox]

No matter how somebody looks at this. The justification for this asinine and arbitrary quota is both terrible and misandrous.

Wanting women in positions of power is not hating men. Chill.

It's not "want". It's about both forcing and enforcement. You are not giving them a choice.

"A survey of more than 4000 directors found that male directors over the age of 55 cited a lack of qualified female candidates as the main reason behind the stagnant number of female directors."

Why should the position be given to unqualified people?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Deleted.

[Chestaan]

I'm no fan of this system, but let's not pretend that companies are anything but hotbeds of nepotism in the upper ranks.

In that case, we should abolish all companies!

On another note, if we are looking to make employment more gender equal, when will we be demanding that 50% of all lumberjacks and miners be female? Or when will we be demanding that 50% of teachers and nurses be male?

[Ifreann]

Wanting women in positions of power is not hating men. Chill.

It's not "want". It's about both forcing and enforcement. You are not giving them a choice.

"A survey of more than 4000 directors found that male directors over the age of 55 cited a lack of qualified female candidates as the main reason behind the stagnant number of female directors."

Why should the position be given to unqualified people?

Hmm.

But what if the reasons that those men cited aren't true?

[Chestaan]

Wanting women in positions of power is not hating men. Chill.

It's not "want". It's about both forcing and enforcement. You are not giving them a choice.

"A survey of more than 4000 directors found that male directors over the age of 55 cited a lack of qualified female candidates as the main reason behind the stagnant number of female directors."

Why should the position be given to unqualified people?

I get where you're coming from, but directors are hardly going to say that they aren't hiring women because they're sexist

[Hammer Britannia]

"A survey of more than 4000 directors found that male directors over the age of 55 cited a lack of qualified female candidates as the main reason behind the stagnant number of female directors."

Why should the position be given to unqualified people?

Because all women are qualified to do whatever job they want ten times better than men.

That or "Muh Equality"

[Uxupox]

It's not "want". It's about both forcing and enforcement. You are not giving them a choice.



Why should the position be given to unqualified people?

Hmm.

But what if the reasons that those men cited aren't true?

the question how do you review on what they are saying. Should we release every interview substantiated with a resume for the applicability of that position?

[Uxupox]

It's not "want". It's about both forcing and enforcement. You are not giving them a choice.



Why should the position be given to unqualified people?

I get where you're coming from, but directors are hardly going to say that they aren't hiring women because they're sexist

forcing a gender quota is pretty much sexism.

[Arkhane]

Nothing says feminism like desperately coercing and pressuring women to enter jobs and occupations they don't like.

There is a HUGE difference between trying to be equal and trying to be like men. Feminists, instead of embracing and owning their femininity, discarded it, and adopted masculinity in a misguided attempt to prove that "women can do anything men can do."

They can keep pretending to themselves that sleeping with many guys is "liberating" and entering highly stressful and demanding jobs "empowering". The all around misery and depression and unfulfillment women face is evidence to the contrary.

[Chestaan]

I get where you're coming from, but directors are hardly going to say that they aren't hiring women because they're sexist

forcing a gender quota is pretty much sexism.

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying that just because directors say there are no qualified women doesn't make it true.

[Uxupox]

forcing a gender quota is pretty much sexism.

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying that just because directors say there are no qualified women doesn't make it true.

Well it's either believe in that survey or do your own investigation about that occurrence.

[Esternial]

I don't see this law as something that should belong in a world where there is true gender equality.

But this is not such a world, so I'm not entirely opposed. Not sure what to think. It could be a good temporary measure. A compensatory move of sorts.

I'm just hoping companies won't just go for a token female to just sit there and actually try to work with the restriction to get a sufficiently qualified woman. Also, I'm sure plenty of unqualified guys are on corporate boards. It's naïve to assume only the most qualified make it to the corporate board.

Worse things have happened. I can understand the outrage, but this isn't a disastrous event. I think I'm safe to assume plenty of restrictions are placed upon companies that aren't wailed on quite as much as this.

[Ifreann]

Hmm.

But what if the reasons that those men cited aren't true?

the question how do you review on what they are saying. Should we release every interview substantiated with a resume for the applicability of that position?

A better way to determine how many women are qualified to be board directors would be to establish what the qualifications are and then survey women for whether they have those qualifications.

[Uxupox]

the question how do you review on what they are saying. Should we release every interview substantiated with a resume for the applicability of that position?

A better way to determine how many women are qualified to be board directors would be to establish what the qualifications are and then survey women for whether they have those qualifications.

each company or board probably has their own suitability, applicability and criteria record.

[Mystic Warriors]

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

Deal with it, different political ideologies are allowed to be expressed in this forum. It's not your safe space.

This is an open forum. That also means anything you say is open to criticism. This isn't your safe space and you cant say whatever you want and nobody is allowed to take issue with it. Dont like it? Deal with it.

[Mystic Warriors]

the question how do you review on what they are saying. Should we release every interview substantiated with a resume for the applicability of that position?

A better way to determine how many women are qualified to be board directors would be to establish what the qualifications are and then survey women for whether they have those qualifications.

Combat sexism at the entry level, remove barriers for advancement and it will solve itself

[Uxupox]

A better way to determine how many women are qualified to be board directors would be to establish what the qualifications are and then survey women for whether they have those qualifications.

Combat sexism at the entry level, remove barriers for advancement and it will solve itself

mind explaining how?

[Ors Might]

Aside from the fact that this might be unconstitutional and the inherent unethicalness of gender quotas, this is really fucking dumb. What, they didn’t want to impose this sort of quota on the workforce at large? Guess equality only matters if it puts a shinier silver spoon in some rich woman’s mouth.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't see this law as something that should belong in a world where there is true gender equality.

It doesn't belong in any world, literal or imaginary.

But this is not such a world, so I'm not entirely opposed. Not sure what to think. It could be a good temporary measure. A compensatory move of sorts.

Except it isn't. It isn't a compensatory measure, it's a tit-for-tat measure that extends female privilege into the corporate sphere to "correct" perceptions of sexism.

I'm just hoping companies won't just go for a token female to just sit there and actually try to work with the restriction to get a sufficiently qualified woman. Also, I'm sure plenty of unqualified guys are on corporate boards. It's naïve to assume only the most qualified make it to the corporate board.

It would be naive to assume so, but to assume that somehow women make it better is also naive. The fact of the matter is, a discriminatory policy or mandate or law should not be based on the perceptions of a group of people who live in an alternate reality.

[Puldania]

Blegh. Leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

[The New California Republic]

I understand the intent behind it, it is just tragic that, as with many laws during their long gestation period, they end up as a shadow or distorted caricature of the original intent.