"By the end of July 2021, a minimum of two women must sit on boards with five members, and there must be at least three women on boards with six or more members."

Gov Brown states "...recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-c...story.html#

I fail to see the logic other than misguided forced diversity. This is not something that should be legislated. Maybe I'm just a C. Pig.

What say you?

The first argument against it is: "The best person should be hired for the job, regardless of their race or gender." Of course that ignores the fact that many positions (especially at this level) is more about who you know, rather than what you know, so I'd venture to say that the best person for the job isn't being hired with or without this regulation. In addition, I don't doubt that there are many qualified women being passed over because of their gender. How much does that happen? Does it warrant action like this? I have no idea.

In the end, the women who would be placed in these positions are soulless bloodsuckers who see people as dollar signs just like the men who would be hired so... fuck it.

Quote: "The best person should be hired for the job, regardless of their race or gender."

The last election demonstrated that no one believes that idea!

And I doubt that Fredo Trump and his siblings got their jobs because they are the best and brightest!

To drive home the point.

In the long term I think the much more damaging shortcomings of the typical American corporate board structure is the lack of representation by intimately affected economic and social interest groups other than equity holders, not the lack of sexual diversity.

Addressing sexual diversity is only a step in the right direction if it is not a bandaid intended to forestall more consequential reforms.

The problem with trying to remove the glass ceiling with a hammer is the broken glass shard that falls beneath. It's a case of damn if you do and damn if you don't. Without such measures, homophilia fuled discrimination will continue and hold back women's achievements. With them, people will belittle women as incompetants who got their jobs thanks to politics and not their talents. Social changes necessary to achieve gender equality can no longer rely mostly on legislation changes like it used too during the second wave. The movement needs a social revolution in modes of thinking and culture. The changes needed are deeper and more complex.

(October 1, 2018 at 5:26 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: "The best person should be hired for the job, regardless of their race or gender."

The last election demonstrated that no one believes that idea!

And I doubt that Fredo Trump and his siblings got their jobs because they are the best and brightest!

I agree. We obviously aren't getting the best and the brightest with the current system.

The other thing about people who say "it should just be about it being the best person." That's true, but I think the best people are fairly evely distributed across demographics. Yet board rooms are made up of most old white guys. So obviously we aren't getting the best people otherwise you would just naturally see more diversity.

Nobody can seriously believe that old white guys are just so fucking great they should be just most of board rooms. Or that they are soover represented in the congress. They are 250% higher portion of white men in congress than in the general population. Not 25% more, which might be excusable, but 250% more. If we were to take the 500 best, smartest people in the country for congress, I'd say it would probably be split 50/50 male female and pretty close on racial demographics to what the regular country is and be way more evenly divided by age as well. It sure as fuck wouldn't be 65% old white dudes. This law might force companies to hire better people, rather than just croneyism. Of course it's all hypothetical.

Quote:I agree. We obviously aren't getting the best and the brightest with the current system.

If they are out there they are not seeking the nomination.

What bullshit.

I'm all for making sure hiring practices are not sexist. But I don't support having separate slots in roles that discriminate.

I think the logic is supposed to be that if there aren't many/any women doing a job, then the hiring practices are sexist. This is not necessarily true. It may be that women just don't generally want to do that job, or that those that do don't happen to be as good at it as the men who apply.

An absence of women may give grounds to investigate for sexist hiring practices; but you don't eliminate sexism with more sexism.

Fuck all this forced diversity. As my hero Noel Plum point out: no one is trying to make sure lots of men go into nursing. They don't give a shit.

We should absolutely have more women, but not like this