California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.

[GrandizerII]

That doesn't seem to be a problem (in this case) in countries that have already implemented these requirements.

Furthermore, research has shown that corporate boards that include women correlate with better firm performance, and that "forcing" a corporate board gender quota seems to have no impact [harmful or otherwise] on firm performance.

https://piie.com/publications/wp/wp16-3.pdf

I have never questioned the wisdom of having women on these boards.  And the hypothetical situation described by Rob may never arise.  But if it does, it's going to end up in court, and it's best to be prepared for the eventuality.

People were worried about that as well in the countries that have these requirements imposed. While imposed gender board quotas did not consistently lead to better performance, none of the disasters expected by these people happened.

Well, you might say it's different over there in Europe, so we can't guarantee that something bad won't come out of this in America. Fine, that would be a claim that's rational but it's not backed by the evidence.

It comes through both ways and through other ways.

It's not about just revamping any system. It's about fairness as well.

Well, you were the one who brought up revamping the system, and I was addressing that.

I'm saying that it's not only about revamping, it's also about fairness ... equality ... that jazz.

Also, the revamping the system bit was in response to someone else who brought it up himself.

From my POV we do need to revamp the system.  You can't build a sound new house with the same rotten lumber from the old one, no matter how much you rearrange it.  Institutional bias is built-in to the current system, and if internal controls were sufficient to change that, it would have been changed by now.

A point we can agree on.

Social movements.  And we are seeing them:  third-and fourth wave feminism; Me Too; He for She; #TIMESUP; GEMS; Planet 50-50; and a host of others.

We're talking about means (not movements), and specifically with regards to corporate board matters. Movements refer to groups of people fighting for some cause. Means are the methods. What are the more effective means being implemented by these movements to increase women's presence in corporate boards? I genuinely don't have full knowledge of what's happening over there in America, so I really would like to know if something is happening that really is working in favor of women who wish to be in these boards.

Because, from my reading, it's not like the state of California didn't previously have some non-binding resolution to encourage more women in these boards. They did make that attempt, and failed to achieve the desired goal. So what's the solution? Just wait it out and hope for the best, keep marching for women equality in corporate boards, or?

Laws, however, are things; education is a process.  You can, to a certain extent, force behavior with a law, IF you have adequately provided for enforcement and the inevitable contingencies. But a law can't force people to become educated.  At best, laws are a short-term stop-gap, and at worst they breed resentment and knee-jerk reaction.

True, but not the point. I'm sure, just like here in Australia, America still has its share of people who resent the system for policies that make life easier/fairer for the groups they resent. That resentment is going to be felt by some people because of some passed law doesn't mean the law should, therefore, not be implemented. If it's fair, then it's the right thing.

Look at the social progress of the past two decades, currently being undermined by the jackass in the Oval Office who never should have been allowed within spitting distance of Pennsylvania Avenue.  We did that to ourselves, by losing our sense of perspective.

Well, social progress isn't going to be in the form of a straight line with a straight slope. There's going to be up-slopes then down-slopes then up-slopes again, but hopefully the curve itself is going upwards nevertheless.