California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.

[Anomalocaris]

Do you really think the typical woman who are likely to become candidate for the board share much the interests of typical woman customer, much less those whose interested are effected but who are not customers?

Exactly. Leave corporate boards to male board members who surely will share the interests of typical customers, both male and female. See that? A two for one deal.

-Teresa

Actually, they won’t share to any significant degree the interests of either typical customers or other broad groups of stakeholders in the conduct and operation of the firm but who are currently excluded from broad representation.

But they share those interests not any less than likely female board members.

So to the actual effected boards the inclusion of female board member will serve only as a cynical bauble to placate demands that favor form and substance. And take some of the wind out of demand for actual substance.

[LastPoet]

We on the forum staff have 4 women, 7 men and a bot. 5 of these men are admins, well, they don't have significant power over mods, they are just computer nerds that is one of those things there aren't many women being, computer nerds.

[Dr H]

I find it strange that suspected sexism is remedied with definite sexism.

Just for the sake of ridiculousness, what happens if no women want to do the job at all? Will there be two empty seats? Or will women be forced to do the job at gunpoint?

I know, right? I mean, what woman would want to worry her pretty little head with running a company, for Pete's sake. Leave that to the men! Their wives can stay home with the children, which is exactly what they secretly want anyway.

-Teresa

I understand rob's point, though.   Let me give an example:

I worked for a social service agency agency which has achieved a high degree of diversity in clients, staff, and administration.  50% of the clients served are people of color, even though the the County population at large is 89% Caucasian.  40% of the staff and admin are minorities; half of both speak Spanish.  Clients are pretty nearly 50/50 male female, and staff and admin are about 80% female to 20% male (hey, it is social services...).  

The rather substantial Board of Directors (36 members) is 50/50 male/female.  Board officers, likewise.

Unfortunately, the Board is also 85% white.

This has become an issue for them among certain funders who have recently jumped onto the DEI bandwagon with both feet.  With a 50% minority client population, said funders are starting to insist that the Board membership doesn't reflect the diversity of the general community in which the agency resides.

But it does -- the general community is 89% white.

This is not a issue the Board has neglected:  they have a standing membership committee dedicated to finding and inviting a diverse population of prospective new Board members.  The problem is that the applicant pool is extremely limited.  There have been  many Board members of color over the years.  But every one of them has been in high demand in the community, and also serving on several other boards at the same time.  After a few years, they burn out and cut back their board participation.  Some board members have been there for 20 years; Board members of color usually serve 2-3 years and then move on.

The issue is, if you don't keep your funders happy, they may stop funding you.  If they stop funding you, then nobody of any color gets to serve on the Board, which will cease to exist with the unfunded agency.

Yet funders are demanding that the Board reflect a non-existent community diversity.

Catch 22, anyone?

Now, to me, there are clearly important diversity issues which need to be addressed here.  But they are community issues, not Board issues.  Why is the community's non-white population so low?   Why does that diminutive population seem to require such a large proportion of available social services?  Could it just be that the community needs to do some serious work regarding providing housing, employment, and other opportunities for people of color?

Mandating specific Board diversity quotas does nothing to address these issues.  Mandating unachievable quotas (e.g., "you need to have a native Hawaiian on your Board, even though the Census shows that none live in your county), potentially does more harm than good.  If the agency loses funding and closes its doors, their clients -- including their clients of color -- lose the opportunity to access their services.

Laws used like bludgeons rarely accomplish what their authors imagine; a sledgehammer really isn't the best tool for repairing a leaky pipe.

[Divinity]

Yes, as we all well know race and sex are very similar. Obviously 86% of people are male. Which is why so many men have a hard time finding mates. It's not like women make up half the population or anything.

[brewer]

Yes, as we all well know race and sex are very similar.  Obviously 86% of people are male.  Which is why so many men have a hard time finding mates.  It's not like women make up half the population or anything.

No, they do. But it's only about 5% of the 1/2 that I want to spend any time with.

[Seraphina]

I know, right? I mean, what woman would want to worry her pretty little head with running a company, for Pete's sake. Leave that to the men! Their wives can stay home with the children, which is exactly what they secretly want anyway.

-Teresa

I understand rob's point, though.   Let me give an example:

I worked for a social service agency agency which has achieved a high degree of diversity in clients, staff, and administration.  50% of the clients served are people of color, even though the the County population at large is 89% Caucasian.  40% of the staff and admin are minorities; half of both speak Spanish.  Clients are pretty nearly 50/50 male female, and staff and admin are about 80% female to 20% male (hey, it is social services...).  

The rather substantial Board of Directors (36 members) is 50/50 male/female.  Board officers, likewise.

Unfortunately, the Board is also 85% white.

This has become an issue for them among certain funders who have recently jumped onto the DEI bandwagon with both feet.  With a 50% minority client population, said funders are starting to insist that the Board membership doesn't reflect the diversity of the general community in which the agency resides.

But it does -- the general community is 89% white.

This is not a issue the Board has neglected:  they have a standing membership committee dedicated to finding and inviting a diverse population of prospective new Board members.  The problem is that the applicant pool is extremely limited.  There have been  many Board members of color over the years.  But every one of them has been in high demand in the community, and also serving on several other boards at the same time.  After a few years, they burn out and cut back their board participation.  Some board members have been there for 20 years; Board members of color usually serve 2-3 years and then move on.

The issue is, if you don't keep your funders happy, they may stop funding you.  If they stop funding you, then nobody of any color gets to serve on the Board, which will cease to exist with the unfunded agency.

Yet funders are demanding that the Board reflect a non-existent community diversity.

Catch 22, anyone?

Now, to me, there are clearly important diversity issues which need to be addressed here.  But they are community issues, not Board issues.  Why is the community's non-white population so low?   Why does that diminutive population seem to require such a large proportion of available social services?  Could it just be that the community needs to do some serious work regarding providing housing, employment, and other opportunities for people of color?

Mandating specific Board diversity quotas does nothing to address these issues.  Mandating unachievable quotas (e.g., "you need to have a native Hawaiian on your Board, even though the Census shows that none live in your county), potentially does more harm than good.  If the agency loses funding and closes its doors, their clients -- including their clients of color -- lose the opportunity to access their services.

Laws used like bludgeons rarely accomplish what their authors imagine; a sledgehammer really isn't the best tool for repairing a leaky pipe.

I don't see how this relates to the new California law for placing women on corporate boards.
A law which, by the way, doesn't require boards to be populated 50% by women.
It's not a zero sum game.
Women have been purposefully kept out of a number of arenas in the US for generations. Often with the complicity of many women themselves, sadly.
My point stands. It's too bad that a law has to be passed and society won't change on its own volition but if that's what it takes to break through inequality, so be it.

-Teresa

[Anomalocaris]

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.

[GrandizerII]

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.

[Mr.Obvious]

Not a fan.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

Politics is about keeping eyes on the ball of winning the war, not about getting distracted with what appears to be the right thing but does not contribute to the war.

Trying to do the little right thing instead of winning the big war is why little right things are won and then to everyone’s great surprise, lost again because the war is not won and the enemy is allowed to regroup and advance again.

Stopping to pick up the loot when the enemy appears to have retreated instead of following up and keeping a laser focus on destroying the enemy first is how wars are lost.