California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.

[Dr H]

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.

I think you may be misconstruing my position.  I never said anything about this law causing any "disasters"; nor did I say anything "bad" would necessarily come of it.  What I said is that I think it will prove either ineffective, or only marginally effective at best, and that the effort required to sustain it -- should it come to a court challenge -- could probably be better and more effectively spent elsewhere.

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.

OK; I stand corrected on that point.

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?

A more effective approach, I think, would be to simply make existing civili rights and non-discrimination laws binding on board membership, if they're not already (which they may or may not currently be, depending on whether board members draw pay or serve in a volunteer capacity).  

You publicly post availability of openings on the Board, and the necessary skills desired for membership.  Then you accept the most qualified applicant(s) regardless of gender, race, color, creed, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, genetic information, or any other locally protected categories not covered by the federal list.

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.

<shrug> A law can be "the right thing" and still be ineffective.

Then it becomes a matter of how much effort one wants to expend bolstering an ineffective law, as opposed to directly addressing the underlying conditions which made the law seem mecessary.

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.

Hopefully.  Although "hair furor" is putting a pretty big downward drag on the curve right now . . .