California passes gender-quota laws

[Page]

This doesn't apply to proletariat women, only to the wealthy. I don't give a shit about how much a female CEO makes, I care about working class women (and all working class people) having equal opportunity, fair work conditions, and a living wage.

[Olerand]

Women being denied access to the levers of society for millennia and then getting access to them is equality, to us at least. Clearly many Americas disagree.

Like I said our principles are different. Ours are positive.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, doesn't make it true. In fact it makes it increasingly obvious that it's false

Increasingly obvious to you? Well, you weren’t our target demographic were you? Catering to the desires of the American right is like catering to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that’s not our intent.

Anyway, the terminology we use is actually parity.

[Ithreland]

Now I know this'll probably sound really stupid and kinda insensitive, but could guys pretend to be trans(*?) with social-only dysphoria and keep their jobs?

[Valrifell]

Now I know this'll probably sound really stupid and kinda insensitive, but could guys pretend to be trans(*?) with social-only dysphoria and keep their jobs?

Normal people don't actually do that, though.

[Thermodolia]

I'm sure This will work and not backfire in any possible Way. Whats the worst that could happen?

We, the people of the tax havens of the United States of America, thank you for the next round of corporations legally changing their states of residence to our states, followed shortly by opening offices marked "Company Name Official Headquarters". We thank you for the huge influx in tax money this will bring.

Great just what I want more traffic in Atlanta

[Free Arabian Nation]

Now I know this'll probably sound really stupid and kinda insensitive, but could guys pretend to be trans(*?) with social-only dysphoria and keep their jobs?

And, in another insensitive hypothetical, let's say there are 3 people applying for a job that needs two people. 2 are highly skilled men and 1 is a woman of moderate/poor skill. In an intelligent and working world, the 2 men would be hired. However, seeing how this law is passed and people actually unironically SUPPORT it, a woman is needed. Therefore, instead of having the 2 highly skilled men, you have 1 skilled man and 1 mediocre woman

[Free Arabian Nation]

Now I know this'll probably sound really stupid and kinda insensitive, but could guys pretend to be trans(*?) with social-only dysphoria and keep their jobs?

Normal people don't actually do that, though.

It could happen

[Valrifell]

Normal people don't actually do that, though.

It could happen

It could happen does not mean it's at all likely to or many people would do it. Like I said, normal people don't actually do that.

[Ifreann]

Now I know this'll probably sound really stupid and kinda insensitive, but could guys pretend to be trans(*?) with social-only dysphoria and keep their jobs?

And, in another insensitive hypothetical, let's say there are 3 people applying for a job that needs two people. 2 are highly skilled men and 1 is a woman of moderate/poor skill. In an intelligent and working world, the 2 men would be hired. However, seeing how this law is passed and people actually unironically SUPPORT it, a woman is needed. Therefore, instead of having the 2 highly skilled men, you have 1 skilled man and 1 mediocre woman

People at the highest levels of corporations might get promoted despite not actually being any good at their job?

How awful, it'll be the exact same as it always has been!

[Dus Osts]

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?

JB is just trying to make himself memorable as a governor before he leaves. He wants to be remembered like Schwarzenegger and Reagan.

[Olerand]

And, in another insensitive hypothetical, let's say there are 3 people applying for a job that needs two people. 2 are highly skilled men and 1 is a woman of moderate/poor skill. In an intelligent and working world, the 2 men would be hired. However, seeing how this law is passed and people actually unironically SUPPORT it, a woman is needed. Therefore, instead of having the 2 highly skilled men, you have 1 skilled man and 1 mediocre woman

People at the highest levels of corporations might get promoted despite not actually being any good at their job?

How awful, it'll be the exact same as it always has been!

The fact that people are actually measuring by "highly skilled" criteria when referring to some no-name corporate board member is... too laughable.

And to think that some companies would move from California, with all the benefits that California has to offer, to some other place rather than place a woman, and in a few years, two women, on their board is... simply too funny.

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?

JB is just trying to make himself memorable as a governor before he leaves. He wants to be remembered like Schwarzenegger and Reagan.

As if Jerry Brown's otherwise very successful terms will be forgotten had it not been for a law mandating that a single woman be present on corporate boards...

[Chestaan]

No, because Western society did not single out women specifically for laws, they were oppressed under archaic authoritarian regimes equally as men were.



The same as men. Men were not citizens, men were unable to vote, men could not be independent, and could not do a lot of the things that we take for granted today. Many, many men sacrificed themselves so that civil liberties and a rejection of authoritarianism could be won for the common man. Once these freedoms for men were won, these freedoms were then extended to women.



Except there was never a war on women.

Then why could men do so many things women couldn't? Why could they have bank accounts? Why could they vote? Why could they travel? Why could they give their children their nationalities? Why could they be independent members of society unattached to their mothers or wives?

Men could vote before women, in many countries a full century and some years before them even. Men could open bank accounts for as long too. Travel, grant citizenship, be independent, the whole package. For a full century. Even before the rise of modern civil rights, men weren't attached to their mothers, and could pack their things and leave the village. Why couldn't women?

Except if there is a war on men, then there was a war on women.

As a point of order, and this is important because its usually ignored, most men couldn't vote for as long as women. In most countries only property owners could vote. The last men in Britain only got the vote after WWII.

[Chestaan]

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?

JB is just trying to make himself memorable as a governor before he leaves. He wants to be remembered like Schwarzenegger and Reagan.

At least he's been immortalised in the Dead Kennedy's song.

[Olerand]

Then why could men do so many things women couldn't? Why could they have bank accounts? Why could they vote? Why could they travel? Why could they give their children their nationalities? Why could they be independent members of society unattached to their mothers or wives?

Men could vote before women, in many countries a full century and some years before them even. Men could open bank accounts for as long too. Travel, grant citizenship, be independent, the whole package. For a full century. Even before the rise of modern civil rights, men weren't attached to their mothers, and could pack their things and leave the village. Why couldn't women?

Except if there is a war on men, then there was a war on women.

As a point of order, and this is important because its usually ignored, most men couldn't vote for as long as women. In most countries only property owners could vote. The last men in Britain only got the vote after WWII.

Men in France were granted universal suffrage by the Revolution, then lost it and reacquired it in a variety of eras. Women couldn't vote anyway.
(White) Men in America were mostly introduced to the electoral lists during the 1820s to 1840s, but not women.

Everywhere men could vote before women.

And why is it that all women are being included with poor men? Were there no wealthy women? Why could wealthy men vote and not wealthy women?

In addition to all the other things I listed.

[Uxupox]

As a point of order, and this is important because its usually ignored, most men couldn't vote for as long as women. In most countries only property owners could vote. The last men in Britain only got the vote after WWII.

Men in France were granted universal suffrage by the Revolution, then lost it and reacquired it in a variety of eras. Women couldn't vote anyway.
(White) Men in America were mostly introduced to the electoral lists during the 1820s to 1840s, but not women.

Everywhere men could vote before women.

And why is it that all women are being included with poor men? Were there no wealthy women? Why could wealthy men vote and not wealthy women?

In addition to all the other things I listed.

wonder why Haiti rebelled from the french oppressors.

[Chestaan]

As a point of order, and this is important because its usually ignored, most men couldn't vote for as long as women. In most countries only property owners could vote. The last men in Britain only got the vote after WWII.

Men in France were granted universal suffrage by the Revolution, then lost it and reacquired it in a variety of eras. Women couldn't vote anyway.
(White) Men in America were mostly introduced to the electoral lists during the 1820s to 1840s, but not women.

Everywhere men could vote before women.

And why is it that all women are being included with poor men? Were there no wealthy women? Why could wealthy men vote and not wealthy women?

In addition to all the other things I listed.

Not in Britain they couldn't. Because the point is that while women's suffrage is mentioned almost every day, and rightly so, suffrage for the proletariat doesn't get mentioned at all.

And as to were there rich women? Usually property owners were men, their wives would be rich, but they wouldn't own the property.

[Great Minarchistan]

Amazingly enough, not all people file taxes, or are dependents of those who file taxes. I know it's news for you, but unemployed American citizens are also human beings.

The sample size of unemployed people for more than 27 wk. (i.e. reasonably long enough to be miscounted on a year-long analysis) is around one percent, so you're sprouting BS if you're relying on this amount of people to make your argument.

So you just confirmed that US citizens, who have been unemployed for over a year, and aren't a dependent, are not a human being in your book. Gotcha.

It's an argument regarding data aggregation (that's extremely on this example).

Between 2000 and 2009, there was a natural increase of 3,090,016 (5,058,440 births minus 2,179,958 deaths). During this time period, international migration produced a net increase of 1,816,633 people while domestic migration produced a net decrease of 1,509,708, resulting in a net in-migration of 306,925 people.

"while domestic migration produced a net decrease of 1,509,708"
hmmm what could it be

3.1 mil vs 1.5 mil. One number there sounds much higher to me.

One's twice the other while both are dismally low. Are you arguing that 0.8ish percent is high but 0.5ish isn't? :^)

Does the IRS not produce mostly financial data? I thought they were the Internal Revenue Service. Are you talking about a different IRS?

Answered your own question. Mostly doesn't mean that they don't report the number of tax filers -- a thing that they do.

In your opinion, coming from a World where those who aren't tax filers or their dependents, aren't counted as human beings.

Just like ~20% of the jobs aren't accounted on data and how opinion polls are composed of 2000-3000 people. Despite this, the reported trend follows up with reality.

If California's population has double digit growth over a decade, that usually means that yearly growth was, on average, above 1%.

0.8-0.9% a year over the course of a decade is enough to bring almost-double digit growth.

Let's say that you have 100,000 people dollars. Your revenue grows by 11% over a decade. You end up with $111,000 in revenue. Now let's say that it grows one percent a year, on average, that means that after ten years, you get: $110,462. Hmm, I wonder, which of those amounts is the larger one?

Now not only you are condescending as well as you're ignoring the fact that both figures have double digit growth over a decade, which was the primary point.

Once again, stop being a prick if you don't mind.

[Olerand]

Men in France were granted universal suffrage by the Revolution, then lost it and reacquired it in a variety of eras. Women couldn't vote anyway.
(White) Men in America were mostly introduced to the electoral lists during the 1820s to 1840s, but not women.

Everywhere men could vote before women.

And why is it that all women are being included with poor men? Were there no wealthy women? Why could wealthy men vote and not wealthy women?

In addition to all the other things I listed.

wonder why Haiti rebelled from the french oppressors.

I'm unsure as to what this off-topic post has to do with the "war on women", but the causes for the Haitian Revolution are numerous. Tensions between colonists and slaves, counter-Revolutionary activities, Louverture's ambitions, and the Expedition of Saint-Domingue all played a part, amongst other factors.

[Great Minarchistan]

Dell isn't anything to be proud of.

You know we have oil and natural gas, too? As I recall, our Standard Oil (Chevron), bought yours (Texaco). But unlike Texas, we have an economy that's more diversified than Saudi Arabia's.

We also have pizza, burgers, and clothes that don't suck.

Gamestop? Who cares? What is this, 2002?

We have Pixar. SpaceX. Tesla Motors.

Hollywood. Lucasfilm. Disney. Universal Pictures.

More people work in renewable energy just in California than are employed by the USA's entire coal industry.

And finally, we have legal weed. So fuck Texas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... _companies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... ies_by_GDP


yeah, California > Texas. Economically Cali is the strongest state in the union. PERIOD.

...Yet one with a secular decaying growth. Texas has long been beating you up in terms of expansion.

[Uxupox]

wonder why Haiti rebelled from the french oppressors.

I'm unsure as to what this off-topic post has to do with the "war on women", but the causes for the Haitian Revolution are numerous. Tensions between colonists and slaves, counter-Revolutionary activities, Louverture's ambitions, and the Expedition of Saint-Domingue all played a part, amongst other factors.

It was a war on both the afro-caribbean and the creole wombs. It was an attempt by a mother nation to completely eradicate both women and men of an enslaved denominated population in Santo Domingo.

[Olerand]

Men in France were granted universal suffrage by the Revolution, then lost it and reacquired it in a variety of eras. Women couldn't vote anyway.
(White) Men in America were mostly introduced to the electoral lists during the 1820s to 1840s, but not women.

Everywhere men could vote before women.

And why is it that all women are being included with poor men? Were there no wealthy women? Why could wealthy men vote and not wealthy women?

In addition to all the other things I listed.

Not in Britain they couldn't. Because the point is that while women's suffrage is mentioned almost every day, and rightly so, suffrage for the proletariat doesn't get mentioned at all.

And as to were there rich women? Usually property owners were men, their wives would be rich, but they wouldn't own the property.

Wealthy Brits could vote long before wealthy women, and in fact, long before other wealthy men of other countries could.

And I'm not downplaying the importance of universal suffrage and the power that granted to the proletariat, I am simply responding to the ludicrous belief that there is a war on men by pointing out that if that is the case, then there has been a war on women for millennia.

And sure, they didn't own property. Why didn't women own property? There were some who were wealthy enough to. And some who did. Neither voted.

[Deltanium]

california is the worst state of the union.

It's not new Jersey.

*cough* West Virginia *cough*

[Great Minarchistan]

Americans are so melodramatic. Getting so worked up over some law that other countries passed in the mid-2000s.

Call back when Europe hits levels of living standards that America achieved in the mid-1990s

[Olerand]

I'm unsure as to what this off-topic post has to do with the "war on women", but the causes for the Haitian Revolution are numerous. Tensions between colonists and slaves, counter-Revolutionary activities, Louverture's ambitions, and the Expedition of Saint-Domingue all played a part, amongst other factors.

It was a war on both the afro-caribbean and the creole wombs. It was an attempt by a mother nation to completely eradicate both women and men of an enslaved denominated population in Santo Domingo.

Uhm... That's historically not true. The slave rebellion began long before the métropole ever got involved, which it initially did by supporting the revolt by outlawing slavery, then using its forces against the Spanish and British; then by attempting to quell it by sending its own expedition and re-instituting slavery (which came about as a result of a Treaty with the British).

The revolt's original reasons were very opaque, and almost entirely localized (if you take out the anti-Revolutionary themes of the early revolts) to the relations on the island.

Americans are so melodramatic. Getting so worked up over some law that other countries passed in the mid-2000s.

Call back when Europe hits levels of living standards that America achieved in the mid-1990s

Numerous European countries have a comparable or higher Human Development Index.

[Estanglia]

Pretty sure “hire more people specifically and explicitly for their genitals” isn’t a positive principle. You Europeans doing okay? I was hoping you’d know that reducing people like that and forcing association are bad.

We force association all the time, that's how we live in a society. Our principles are different, I get that. Your principles aren't positive, I get that.

How is 'your gender should be irrelevant. People should only be hired based on merit' not a positive principle?

And it's not in Europe that the State won't defend the principles of gender equality, by ensuring that there is representation for women in politics, business, and otherwise.

Because at least America realizes hiring based on sex is stupid.

Nah man I think it's your principles that aren't positive
it's discrimination through and through

Well our principles work to ensure equality. Yours... defend "free association" from women.

I like ours better, ours are positive.

Meritocracy is better than forcing people to hire women just because they have vaginas.

Shame we don't have the facepalm smilie any more, it'd be fitting here.
How is it equality? Preferential treatment enforced by law doesn't sound much like "equality" to me friendo

Women being denied access to the levers of society for millennia and then getting access to them is equality, to us at least. Clearly many Americas disagree.

There is a difference between giving them access and forcing people to give them access.

You seem to want parity between men and women, not giving both women and men equal access. Whilst both are technically equality, one of them can only be achieved by force and discrimination.