California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.

[robvalue]

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 aren't talking about mandating women do jobs they aren't as capable of doing. Like they aren't saying half of oil workers or firefighters be women. Board members should be half women anyway if things were working well and they were choosing the most qualified candidates.

I'm not sure what the alternative thought process is. You either believe that the status quo is okay, and by coincidence it's just a bunch of old white dudes who are the best at running pretty much everything or you believe that it is a problem but that problem should be dealt with in a different way. Which sort of reminds me of other arguments against forced intergration, like we want to get more women on boards, but we need to do it the right way.

I think the important question is will this be good for California bussiness? I would argue yes. Forced intergrations of various kinds have a history of success.

While it doesn't seem fair, what actually happens is that companies are forced to look at a wider variety of candidates and because of that end up with better people.

Example Let's say there are 10 board slots and 100 potential candidates, 50 women and 50 men. So chances are that it would split pretty evenly does the middle in terms of who is the smartest, hardest working, best to run a company. Even if 6 men were the best to 4 women, you'd still end up with better people overall if you forced.a 5-5 split than if you kept the current split, which is 9-1

To not see this as an instant improvement means you'd have to believe that the 9th best guy is more qualified than the second best woman. Which is nonsense. So this law is an instant improvement is the higher functioning of bussiness.

Well no, if it so happens that 99% of applicants in a particular job are men, you wouldn't expect there to be 50% women employed. I don't know what the stats are. You'd only expect 50/50 if applications were also 50/50.