California passes gender-quota laws

[Hammer Britannia]

Commiefornia's only saving grace is its where all the heads of major businesses are. Had it been anywhere else, this shit wouldn't fly.

There's a reason why a lot of companies are moving to Maryland.

Like Apple

[Chestaan]

But seriously though, when are the advocates to this law going to demand that 50% of nurses and teachers be male and, I would argue more important to tackling gender roles, that 50% of miners and lumberjacks are female?

I'll let you in on a totally-not-secret, the idea behind laws like this isn't to force half of all board positions to go to women, it's to break the practice of all-male boards giving positions to golfing buddies and never really considering female applicants.

I am aware of that, and it is a problem. My issue is that the societal gender roles that mandates that men should take dangerous or "manly" jobs like mining or lumberjacks and not "feminine" jobs like nursing or teaching is equally a problem. Surely you can agree with that?

[Olerand]

I think we have had this discussion before, and I'm not really interested in reliving the past. I will say that the American right is to the right of all mainstream right-wings in (developed) Europe, and actually to the right of the radical right-wing parties the American press labels "far-right".

You believe that, at least.

No, you dislike our values for much the same reason. Our laws seek to establish parity between men and women, in politics and elsewhere. To you, that is discrimination. Because parity is in itself not a value of yours. It is ours. Do you grasp the difference?

Your "parity" is not a beneficial form of equality (or even really "parity" for that matter) in any way. We seek to establish equality without turning to discrimination as a tool unless it's the only option (and even then we're hesitant).

Americans accept that some men will not shake hands with a woman. We do not. Do you grasp the difference? Equality is a value of ours, "liberty" is more important to you, even when that liberty is in itself actually discriminatory (again I ask, a hundred and some million American women, and we're supposed to believe not one has the "merit" to be on your board?).

What you say you strive for and what you actually strive for disagree. You aren't interested in proper equality; you wish for equality of outcome, not opportunity. A far superior solution is to punish discrimination instead of enforcing it.

Oh I know it. Anyone who looks at the Republican and the Rassemblement national's (former Front national) platforms can see it, clear as day.

You don't seek to establish equality. Not at all, never have really.

We punish it, and seek to bring it about. It is illegal to discriminate based on gender, but as I already said, we can't be sure to be in the minds of all the recruiters, so we're taking more proactive measures.

Equality of opportunity is one of those really nice words Anglo-saxon liberals like, its' very Blairish. It doesn't really mean anything. You can be a poor nothing who went to a great school, you'll always lose against someone with connections.

[Ifreann]

I'll let you in on a totally-not-secret, the idea behind laws like this isn't to force half of all board positions to go to women, it's to break the practice of all-male boards giving positions to golfing buddies and never really considering female applicants.

I am aware of that, and it is a problem. My issue is that the societal gender roles that mandates that men should take dangerous or "manly" jobs like mining or lumberjacks and not "feminine" jobs like nursing or teaching is equally a problem. Surely you can agree with that?

I didn't think that was a point of dispute. I was explaining why no one is calling for laws mandating all these jobs to be split evenly between men and women.

[New yugoslavaia]

Bloody el, this isn't liberalism. Well, it's American Liberalism, but I'm fed up of people using the term in that manner. Paul Joseph Watson is English and he uses Liberal in the American way. Liberalism = A political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Then Again, PJW is a crackpot.

Wait, what do you mean we're talking about something else. Ok, umm...I think it's not ok because...umm...err...merit?

[Proctopeo]

You believe that, at least.


Your "parity" is not a beneficial form of equality (or even really "parity" for that matter) in any way. We seek to establish equality without turning to discrimination as a tool unless it's the only option (and even then we're hesitant).


What you say you strive for and what you actually strive for disagree. You aren't interested in proper equality; you wish for equality of outcome, not opportunity. A far superior solution is to punish discrimination instead of enforcing it.

Oh I know it. Anyone who looks at the Republican and the Rassemblement national's (former Front national) platforms can see it, clear as day.

Compared to you, they're radicals. Compared to less radical people, they come off as rather normal.

You don't seek to establish equality. Not at all, never have really.

We punish it, and seek to bring it about. It is illegal to discriminate based on gender, but as I already said, we can't be sure to be in the minds of all the recruiters, so we're taking more proactive measures.

>illegal to discriminate based on gender
>enforces discrimination based on gender
There's something inconsistent about these positions. Maybe someone sensible in France will bring it up.

Equality of opportunity is one of those really nice words Anglo-saxon liberals like, its' very Blairish. It doesn't really mean anything. You can be a poor nothing who went to a great school, you'll always lose against someone with connections.

And yet it is still far superior to the drivel that is equality of outcomes.

[Great Minarchistan]

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

GDP per capita =/= Living Standards

It's often equivalent with this sort of comparison.

[Chestaan]

I am aware of that, and it is a problem. My issue is that the societal gender roles that mandates that men should take dangerous or "manly" jobs like mining or lumberjacks and not "feminine" jobs like nursing or teaching is equally a problem. Surely you can agree with that?

I didn't think that was a point of dispute. I was explaining why no one is calling for laws mandating all these jobs to be split evenly between men and women.

Mandating might be a bit much, but there are many movements to make areas such as STEM more gender equal and steps have been taken to make these areas more accessible to women. And rightly so. I would argue that those that are on top, on boards etc. matter about the same as who's on the floor, especially with teachers and the issue is one tied into gender roles for both. Board member is seen as a male job, teacher as a female job.

I would also say that this law will not prevent CEOs appointing their mates, they'll simply be more likely to appoint their female friends, or their wives friends or whatever. Gender disparity is, in and of itself, an issue separate to the nepotism (or whatever its called if its not family but friends).

[Olerand]

Oh I know it. Anyone who looks at the Republican and the Rassemblement national's (former Front national) platforms can see it, clear as day.

Compared to you, they're radicals. Compared to less radical people, they come off as rather normal.

You don't seek to establish equality. Not at all, never have really.

We punish it, and seek to bring it about. It is illegal to discriminate based on gender, but as I already said, we can't be sure to be in the minds of all the recruiters, so we're taking more proactive measures.

>illegal to discriminate based on gender
>enforces discrimination based on gender
There's something inconsistent about these positions. Maybe someone sensible in France will bring it up.

Equality of opportunity is one of those really nice words Anglo-saxon liberals like, its' very Blairish. It doesn't really mean anything. You can be a poor nothing who went to a great school, you'll always lose against someone with connections.

And yet it is still far superior to the drivel that is equality of outcomes.

Who comes off as less radical? The radical right in Europe? No, they come off as radical, which is why they can't form a majority in any country. The Republicans? Put up their proposals and ask Europeans about them, and let's see if they're radical or not. Fortunately for us in Europe, we don't have to know the GOP's radicalism, so we don't pay attention. But put their proposals and ask people about them. It's positive that they will be placed to the right of the RN's.

No, the law in France ensures that men and women have equal access to the same positions in politics, and social and economic responsibilities. They don't have equal access, which is why the parity laws exist. Which is why they exist all around Europe, and in Malaysia, and in Iraq or whatever.

Well we don't seek equality of outcomes in all things, that would be impractical. Only in the things where we believe equality of outcomes will break the cycle and eventually ensure equality of opportunity. That's what you have to do, if you were truly committed to equality of opportunity.

[Ifreann]

I didn't think that was a point of dispute. I was explaining why no one is calling for laws mandating all these jobs to be split evenly between men and women.

Mandating might be a bit much, but there are many movements to make areas such as STEM more gender equal and steps have been taken to make these areas more accessible to women. And rightly so. I would argue that those that are on top, on boards etc. matter about the same as who's on the floor, especially with teachers and the issue is one tied into gender roles for both. Board member is seen as a male job, teacher as a female job.

I would also say that this law will not prevent CEOs appointing their mates, they'll simply be more likely to appoint their female friends, or their wives friends or whatever. Gender disparity is, in and of itself, an issue separate to the nepotism (or whatever its called if its not family but friends).

In theory what would happen is that getting women on boards would show that women can do board stuff just as well as men and undermine the pro-men bias in choosing new board members.

[Proctopeo]

Compared to you, they're radicals. Compared to less radical people, they come off as rather normal.





>illegal to discriminate based on gender
>enforces discrimination based on gender
There's something inconsistent about these positions. Maybe someone sensible in France will bring it up.


And yet it is still far superior to the drivel that is equality of outcomes.

Who comes off as less radical? The radical right in Europe? No, they come off as radical, which is why they can't form a majority in any country. The Republicans? Put up their proposals and ask Europeans about them, and let's see if they're radical or not. Fortunately for us in Europe, we don't have to know the GOP's radicalism, so we don't pay attention. But put their proposals and ask people about them. It's positive that they will be placed to the right of the RN's.

I feel like you missed my point.

No, the law in France ensures that men and women have equal access to the same positions in politics, and social and economic responsibilities. They don't have equal access, which is why the parity laws exist. Which is why they exist all around Europe, and in Malaysia, and in Iraq or whatever.

Since when don't they have equal access? Requiring a quota forces unequal access if anything.

Well we don't seek equality of outcomes in all things, that would be impractical. Only in the things where we believe equality of outcomes will break the cycle and eventually ensure equality of opportunity. That's what you have to do, if you were truly committed to equality of opportunity.

No it's not. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and you chose the dumbest way that still might give you your intended result.

[Olerand]

Who comes off as less radical? The radical right in Europe? No, they come off as radical, which is why they can't form a majority in any country. The Republicans? Put up their proposals and ask Europeans about them, and let's see if they're radical or not. Fortunately for us in Europe, we don't have to know the GOP's radicalism, so we don't pay attention. But put their proposals and ask people about them. It's positive that they will be placed to the right of the RN's.

I feel like you missed my point.

No, the law in France ensures that men and women have equal access to the same positions in politics, and social and economic responsibilities. They don't have equal access, which is why the parity laws exist. Which is why they exist all around Europe, and in Malaysia, and in Iraq or whatever.

Since when don't they have equal access? Requiring a quota forces unequal access if anything.

Well we don't seek equality of outcomes in all things, that would be impractical. Only in the things where we believe equality of outcomes will break the cycle and eventually ensure equality of opportunity. That's what you have to do, if you were truly committed to equality of opportunity.

No it's not. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and you chose the dumbest way that still might give you your intended result.

You're calling me radical. I'm saying I am the European mainstream. Thus, they are radical, to us at least.

No, it forces equal access in that the presence of women on these boards will change the dynamics and hiring practices, giving women the opportunity to actually accede to these posts when a lack of women was clearly a hampering force to them.

Well, there's our way, which is achieving measurable results, and the American way of seeking "equality", which is achieving... Well, what it is achieving. Which is boards with not a single woman on them, and commentators against a law seeking to place one.

[Proctopeo]

I feel like you missed my point.


Since when don't they have equal access? Requiring a quota forces unequal access if anything.


No it's not. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and you chose the dumbest way that still might give you your intended result.

You're calling me radical. I'm saying I am the European mainstream. Thus, they are radical, to us at least.

At least you admit that it's a matter of perspective.
Although if you're the "European mainstream", Europe is thoroughly screwed.

No, it forces equal access in that the presence of women on these boards will change the dynamics and hiring practices, giving women the opportunity to actually accede to these posts when a lack of women was clearly a hampering force to them.

No, it's unequal access and discrimination.

Well, there's our way, which is achieving measurable results, and the American way of seeking "equality", which is achieving... Well, what it is achieving. Which is boards with not a single woman on them, and commentators against a law seeking to place one.

How many women actually want to be on company boards? And how many are more qualified for the position than their competitors? The problem lies in the pool of who's interested. Forcing boards to have women is inherently discriminatory.

[Olerand]

You're calling me radical. I'm saying I am the European mainstream. Thus, they are radical, to us at least.

At least you admit that it's a matter of perspective.
Although if you're the "European mainstream", Europe is thoroughly screwed.

No, it forces equal access in that the presence of women on these boards will change the dynamics and hiring practices, giving women the opportunity to actually accede to these posts when a lack of women was clearly a hampering force to them.

No, it's unequal access and discrimination.

Well, there's our way, which is achieving measurable results, and the American way of seeking "equality", which is achieving... Well, what it is achieving. Which is boards with not a single woman on them, and commentators against a law seeking to place one.

How many women actually want to be on company boards? And how many are more qualified for the position than their competitors? The problem lies in the pool of who's interested. Forcing boards to have women is inherently discriminatory.

For our commitment to gender parity, or our willingness to actually use our State? Anyway, this is really funny, I really think you should worry about you long, long, long before you can have the luxury to worry about us.

No. It’s breaking a cycle.

As many women as are applying. I’m going to go out on a limb, as they say, and claim that these companies aren’t hungrily prowling the streets to find any woman to just fill those quotas.

[Proctopeo]

At least you admit that it's a matter of perspective.
Although if you're the "European mainstream", Europe is thoroughly screwed.


No, it's unequal access and discrimination.


How many women actually want to be on company boards? And how many are more qualified for the position than their competitors? The problem lies in the pool of who's interested. Forcing boards to have women is inherently discriminatory.

For our commitment to gender parity, or our willingness to actually use our State? Anyway, this is really funny, I really think you should worry about you long, long, long before you can have the luxury to worry about us.

We're doing quite alright. We should worry about Europe because your authoritarian, discriminatory nonsense might inspire our radicals to do the same. California is proof that to some extent, you already have.

No. It’s breaking a cycle.

nah tho

As many women as are applying. I’m going to go out on a limb, as they say, and claim that these companies aren’t hungrily prowling the streets to find any woman to just fill those quotas.

Obviously not, of course, but they will be forced to pass up more qualified male candidates if they've yet to meet the quota. Which is, you know, discrimination.

[Shofercia]

Of course NPP can lean left. And NPP can lean right. The poster I was responding to was making it sound like Conservatives can't win in California. If so, how'd John Cox win the primaries?

Well, a little bit of that is Newsom running the primaries like it was the general against his Democratic opponent so he could run easier against Cox, something I only just now have been assuming is going as planned. Which, now that I checked, yes. Yes it is. But your general point stands, we have elected Republican governors. The one before our current one was, who unseated a democratic governor mid-term who had taken over from a two term Republican. It happens. Not with the shit that's being offered up now, but it does happen.

Right now both parties' selections are incredibly uncharismatic. Also, a bunch of Newsom's policies are just plain bad. He supports the High Speed Train, supports eliminating the commercial aspects of Prop 13, supports mandating that cities build more housing, etc.

Of course NPP can lean left. And NPP can lean right. The poster I was responding to was making it sound like Conservatives can't win in California. If so, how'd John Cox win the primaries?

I was referring to the idea that just because left wing parties have under 50% that means liberals are a minority. We are not. Conservatives on a national level can't win, George HW Bush in 1988 was the last Republican to carry this state and will forever be the last. The GOP can't carry this state.

There are millions of Republicans and a fractured Democratic vote would say why he got the nod. He has a better chance of striking gold in his nose then winning though.

Riiight.

I was referring to the idea that just because left wing parties have under 50% that means liberals are a minority. We are not. Conservatives on a national level can't win, George HW Bush in 1988 was the last Republican to carry this state and will forever be the last. The GOP can't carry this state.

There are millions of Republicans and a fractured Democratic vote would say why he got the nod. He has a better chance of striking gold in his nose then winning though.

that's the same thing that was said about Pennsylvania.

nobody knows what the future has to offer. they might flip in the future or hell might go full on eco-fascist.

We don't always go Fascist in California. But when we do, we go eco-fascist! That's a joke people. Calm down. We're not going to be eco-fascists.

[Loben]

"California sits on its balls, rest of america in pained laughter"

[Page]

I wish that California cared about working class women who work most of their waking hours for slave wages (along with working class men, whose slave wages are slightly higher) rather than making sure 1% women who make 10 million dollars a year have the chance to make 20.

[Telconi]

I wish that California cared about working class women who work most of their waking hours for slave wages (along with working class men, whose slave wages are slightly higher) rather than making sure 1% women who make 10 million dollars a year have the chance to make 20.

Why would the state of champagne Liberals care about people who can't afford champagne?

[Shofercia]

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.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-vary-w ... liability/

Generally speaking, the most populated states have the most nonpayers. More than 6 million tax-filing Californians paid nothing to Uncle Sam for the 2008 tax year. That was 37 percent of the 16.4 million tax filers in California.

There were 37 million people in California in 2008. 16.4 million, and their dependents, filed taxes. Either Californians have a lot of dependents, or millions of people don't file taxes and using IRS data to count people is wrong!

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).

If you count people, you use the census, the thingy that counts people.

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

That would be people leaving the state. Your implication was that California's "mass exodus" might've been equal to California's population growth.

Losing half percent of your population every year is significant (especially when most countries and regions nowadays see their natural pop growth rate at 1.5ish percent a year), and is equivalent of a mass exodus when compounded over time.

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? :^)

I'm pointing out that 3.1 mil is a much higher number than 1.5 mil. I'm unsure how that confused you, but it somehow did.

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.

There are people who are not tax filers. When you count people, you use the thing that counts people. Duh! Those who aren't tax filers, are also people. We've been over this.

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.

Opinion polls represent opinions on common topics, as people share opinions. People do not usually share bodies.

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.

Almost doesn't count. If you're almost hired, you're still unemployed, not paying taxes, and probably not filing a tax return, which means that you're not counted as a human being to... well... you.

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.

If you're going to tell me that that people who don't file taxes don't deserve to be counted because there are too few of them, you don't get to whine about condescension in my book. And yes, they both have double digit growth. That was my point. You were talking about sub-percent levels on a yearly basis which is a tad different than double digit growth.

[Shofercia]

I wish that California cared about working class women who work most of their waking hours for slave wages (along with working class men, whose slave wages are slightly higher) rather than making sure 1% women who make 10 million dollars a year have the chance to make 20.

California - where Republicans might end up fighting for Rent Control

[Chestaan]

I wish that California cared about working class women who work most of their waking hours for slave wages (along with working class men, whose slave wages are slightly higher) rather than making sure 1% women who make 10 million dollars a year have the chance to make 20.

Its a staple of the centre left, try to look like you care without really tackling the underlying issues.

[Great Minarchistan]

https://taxfoundation.org/states-vary-widely-number-tax-filers-no-income-tax-liability/

You cited the unemployed, sorry ma'am

If you count people, you use the census, the thingy that counts people.

And the census also showed a strong net domestic emigration. Thanks for proving my point, I guess?

That would be people leaving the state. Your implication was that California's "mass exodus" might've been equal to California's population growth.

Quote me saying so in these exact words, else you're sprouting bullshit.

Losing half percent of your population every year is significant (especially when most countries and regions nowadays see their natural pop growth rate at 1.5ish percent a year), and is equivalent of a mass exodus when compounded over time.

Ah, I see you did it in advance. So you're indeed sprouting bullshit as I didn't say that.

I'm pointing out that 3.1 mil is a much higher number than 1.5 mil. I'm unsure how that confused you, but it somehow did.

I'm unsure how the fact that IRS also reports stuff outside of the taxation field confused you, but it somehow did. See, I can create equally ignorant sentences!

There are people who are not tax filers. When you count people, you use the thing that counts people. Duh! Those who aren't tax filers, are also people. We've been over this.

...And your data, provided by the sacrosanct "people-counting" U.S. Census corroborated my point on domestic migration.

Opinion polls represent opinions on common topics, as people share opinions. People do not usually share bodies.

Define usually :^)

Almost doesn't count. If you're almost hired, you're still unemployed, not paying taxes, and probably not filing a tax return, which means that you're not counted as a human being to... well... you.

Which is fairly interesting, since the "people-counting" U.S. Census showed sub-percent pop growth in Cali for every year ever since 2008 (except in 2009, which was an outstanding full percentage point). You sure you didn't, you know, round up to double digit growth?

If you're going to tell me that that people who don't file taxes don't deserve to be counted because there are too few of them, you don't get to whine about condescension in my book.

Your primary argument was about the unemployed, of which you blowharded during your post. Shifting goalposts so to attack a reply that wasn't based on it isn't really good ethics bro.

And yes, they both have double digit growth. That was my point. You were talking about sub-percent levels on a yearly basis which is a tad different than double digit growth.

Double digit growth over a decade or over a year? Because I was talking about yearly growth, does Cali has 10%+ pop growth every year now? Apparently so.

[Great Minarchistan]

I wish that California cared about working class women who work most of their waking hours for slave wages (along with working class men, whose slave wages are slightly higher) rather than making sure 1% women who make 10 million dollars a year have the chance to make 20.

Its a staple of the centre left, try to look like you care without really tackling the underlying issues.

The underlying issues being?

[Costa Fierro]

Universal suffrage was available, in America at least (France preceded this), country-wide as early as the 1820s. Women couldn't vote until the 1920s.

Not true at all. In the United States, universal suffrage was not achieved until 1962 largely thanks to electoral laws in the south which prevented African Americans from enrolling and voting in large numbers. And prior to the 20th century, the United States mandated literacy and land ownership requirements which, depending on which state one lived in, allowed women who owned land and who were literate to vote. Women were able to vote before the 1920's, but only if they owned land and were literate. This of course, was not a rule that was exclusively forced upon women, the similar wealth and literacy requirements applied to men as well.

Women couldn't open bank accounts, travel freely, grant citizenship, nor be an independent member of society until long after men got those rights too.

Women could do all of those things. The only limiting factor was the social class that a person occupied. Women who were privileged enjoyed the same benefits as men did.

And again, independence goes back to the ancient era, as does men's privileged position in a marriage, family, and society at large. And if that's the case, then the war on women is millennia old. Men in the ancient world could and did pack up and leave, why couldn't women? Why couldn't women be the heads of households? Why couldn't women lead societies, even in the privileged classes?

Women could do all of those things. You're forgetting that ancient civilisations did have women leaders at various points.

If there was a war on men, then there was a war on women.

There was no war on women, there is a war on men.