Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 10:08 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
#41
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
(October 6, 2018 at 6:13 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:
(October 6, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Grandizer Wrote: 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.

Yes, totally. Men are the enemy. We women must play the game right and destroy them to reach equality. And who decides on the game's rules? Men, of course. 'Twas always thus and that's how it should be. A level playing field? Nah.  Please. Keep the status quo! Why demand any changes? These are puny distractions from winning the war. Just live with the way things are (what's so wrong with that anyway?) and when those in power want to yield, then you crazy women will get your equality.

-Teresa

-Teresa
.
Reply
#42
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
(October 6, 2018 at 7:41 pm)Tres Leches Wrote:
(October 6, 2018 at 6:13 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: 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.

Yes, totally. Men are the enemy. We women must play the game right and destroy them to reach equality. And who decides on the game's rules? Men, of course. 'Twas always thus and that's how it should be. A level playing field? Nah.  Please. Keep the status quo! Why demand any changes? These are puny distractions from winning the war. Just live with the way things are (what's so wrong with that anyway?) and when those in power want to yield, then you crazy women will get your equality.

-Teresa

-Teresa

No, the enemy is an system of accepted practices and beliefs that makes it see natural and right for established wealth to feel free to impose burden on society to further enrich and aggrandize themselves. As it is now, adding the sort of women likely to sit on this kind of board will strength this system, not weaken it.
Reply
#43
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
(October 6, 2018 at 7:53 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:
(October 6, 2018 at 7:41 pm)Tres Leches Wrote: Yes, totally. Men are the enemy. We women must play the game right and destroy them to reach equality. And who decides on the game's rules? Men, of course. 'Twas always thus and that's how it should be. A level playing field? Nah.  Please. Keep the status quo! Why demand any changes? These are puny distractions from winning the war. Just live with the way things are (what's so wrong with that anyway?) and when those in power want to yield, then you crazy women will get your equality.

-Teresa

-Teresa

No, the enemy is an system of accepted practices and beliefs that makes it see natural and right for established wealth to feel free to impose burden on society to further enrich themselves.

Who do you think set up such a system? And why are we not ok with women being granted the same privilege as men in this currently flawed system?

There's no easy solution, I agree. But the system is flawed, and it's going to take aeons before this gets fixed in a natural manner (i.e., without a fight). Why not gradually address aspects of it until the whole system has been revamped properly? Why continue fostering sexist attitudes against women, especially when the rationale for such mindset isn't warranted?
Reply
#44
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
(October 6, 2018 at 12:50 pm)Tres Leches Wrote: I don't see how this relates to the new California law for placing women on corporate boards.
It relates to Rob's point that there can be cases in which forcing a quota does more harm than good, if there aren't applicants available to meet a particular quota.  

Quote:A law which, by the way, doesn't require boards to be populated 50% by women.
Um... yes it does:

"No later than the close of the 2021 calendar year, the bill would increase that required minimum number to 2 female directors if the corporation has 5 directors or to 3 female directors if the corporation has 6 or more directors."

Two out of five is 40%; three out of six is 50%.

Quote: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.
I don't disagree with that.

Quote: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.
And my point stands -- passing a law won't fix this; it rarely ever does.

(October 6, 2018 at 9:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: There's no easy solution, I agree. But the system is flawed, and it's going to take aeons before this gets fixed in a natural manner (i.e., without a fight).
So, fight.

Major social change comes about through social movements, not through working within the system that is already stacked against you.

Quote:Why not gradually address aspects of it until the whole system has been revamped properly?
Because the system will never get revamped in that way.  It's bailing a sinking ship with a leaky cup, when what is needed in a new ship.

That said, there's nothing wrong with trying to use all available means to try to effect change.
It's just something of a waste of effort to use a less effective means, when more effective means are available.


Quote:Why continue fostering sexist attitudes against women, especially when the rationale for such mindset isn't warranted?
Passing a law rarely changes any attitudes or mindsets.
Look at Prohibition, or the Civil Rights Act.
-- 
Dr H


"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Reply
#45
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
(October 9, 2018 at 7:01 pm)Dr H Wrote: It relates to Rob's point that there can be cases in which forcing a quota does more harm than good, if there aren't applicants available to meet a particular quota.

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

Quote:
(October 6, 2018 at 9:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: There's no easy solution, I agree. But the system is flawed, and it's going to take aeons before this gets fixed in a natural manner (i.e., without a fight).
So, fight.

That's part of the fight.

Quote:Major social change comes about through social movements, not through working within the system that is already stacked against you.

It comes through both ways and through other ways.

Quote:Because the system will never get revamped in that way.  It's bailing a sinking ship with a leaky cup, when what is needed in a new ship.

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

Quote:That said, there's nothing wrong with trying to use all available means to try to effect change.
It's just something of a waste of effort to use a less effective means, when more effective means are available.

What are these more effective means? Why are we not seeing them planned and implemented, and instead we have privileged men like us (I'm assuming you're a man ... if not, my apologies) telling women their inclusion in corporate boards is not necessarily the best idea because?

Quote:Passing a law rarely changes any attitudes or mindsets.
Look at Prohibition, or the Civil Rights Act.

Yes, I understand. In fact, I said as much in another recent thread.

At the same time, however, we can't continue to condone unfairness stemming from male privilege and yielding forever to "privilege and chauvinism speak". That's just continuing to enable sexist attitudes. It doesn't help mitigate the biases in any way whatsoever.
Reply
#46
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
(October 6, 2018 at 9:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Who do you think set up such a system? And why are we not ok with women being granted the same privilege as men in this currently flawed system?

LOL - when exactly were men "granted" privilege?
Reply
#47
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
(October 9, 2018 at 9:47 pm)Grandizer Wrote: 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.

Quote:That's part of the fight.
If you say so.  If so, it's the easy and least effective part of the fight.
It's relatively easy to get local laws passed; enforcing them and making them produce useful results is another story.

Quote: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.

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.

Quote:What are these more effective means? Why are we not seeing them planned and implemented,
and instead we have privileged men like us (I'm assuming you're a man ... if not, my apologies) telling women their inclusion in corporate boards is not necessarily the best idea because?
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.

Quote:Yes, I understand. In fact, I said as much in another recent thread.
Then to that extent, we agree.

Quote:At the same time, however, we can't continue to condone unfairness stemming from male privilege and yielding forever to "privilege and chauvinism speak". That's just continuing to enable sexist attitudes. It doesn't help mitigate the biases in any way whatsoever.
Nor did I suggest that we should.

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.  

Because of that, I feel the effort is a relative waste of time.  We Americans are really fond of the feel-good quick-fix.  Trouble is, quick "fixes" rarely, if ever, address the real underlying problems that need fixing.  As an earlier poster pointed out, we pat ourselves on the back for winning the skirmish, and then get overrun when the rest of the battle catches up with us, losing what we've gained, and then some.  One step forward and two steps back.

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.
-- 
Dr H


"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Reply
#48
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
The way I see it is the best person suited for the role should take it regardless of sex, race, etc. This could be a recommended method to getting more women involved but shouldn't be a requirement.
Reply
#49
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
(October 10, 2018 at 3:44 pm)Dr H Wrote:
(October 9, 2018 at 9:47 pm)Grandizer Wrote: 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.

Quote:
Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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?

Quote: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.

Quote: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.
Reply
#50
RE: California Requires Women on Corp Boards by law.
(October 11, 2018 at 6:10 am)Grandizer Wrote: 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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.


Quote: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 . . .
-- 
Dr H


"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trans women banned from world chess LinuxGal 37 2782 October 15, 2023 at 10:10 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  MA publishes database of law enforcement disciplinary actions Nanny 0 379 August 22, 2023 at 3:23 pm
Last Post: Nanny
  Women's Rights Lek 314 18019 April 25, 2023 at 5:22 am
Last Post: The Architect Of Fate
  California about to be the first state to administer reparations!s Huggy Bear 77 3672 April 3, 2022 at 12:51 pm
Last Post: onlinebiker
  Break any law if it’s for Jesus Fake Messiah 0 138 March 17, 2021 at 1:27 pm
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  [Serious] G-20 leaders, don’t forget the women’s rights advocates rotting in Saudi prisons WinterHold 47 2085 September 23, 2020 at 6:26 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  This from the California Tourism Board. Gawdzilla Sama 74 5266 September 21, 2020 at 12:19 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  California High Capacity Magazine Ban Shot Down. onlinebiker 73 2316 August 25, 2020 at 1:37 am
Last Post: Peebothuhlu
  Damned Women BrianSoddingBoru4 26 2139 December 19, 2019 at 6:00 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Garlic festival shooting: Three dead in Gilroy California zebo-the-fat 30 3119 August 1, 2019 at 9:09 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)