(October 6, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: I don’t care if the women are kept out of boards if the women who are kept out would have reflected essentially the same corporate governance interests as the men who kept them out.
It is better to let an unacceptably flawed system keep every one of its flaws so each of them contributes to a demand for a thorough revamp of the system, than to let it address one minor flaw and use that to relieve the pressure to make much more significant changes.
As if. It's a big assumption to argue that keeping the system as it is with its current flaws will eventually lead to a demand for a thorough revamp. Most likely, if nothing is done to address any of these flaws, nothing will ever be changed.
Also, this argument that at this current time it's best that women not be included in these boards if they're basically going to be the same as men is what male privilege is about. It's about continuing to grant men this privilege not granted to women. It's ok for men to continue to be in these boards with all their flaws, but women should be kept out? Yeah, something about that doesn't seem right.
