SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law today that requires major companies with headquarters in California — including many household-name tech firms — to have at least one woman on their boards by next year, and depending on the size of the board, up to three women by 2021.
The law is the first of its kind in the U.S., and proponents say it's needed to equalize the representation of women in corporate boardroom. Currently, a quarter of California's publicly traded companies do not have a woman on their boards. Companies that fail to comply with the new rule face fines of $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for a second or subsequent violation.
The law already faces opposition from business groups, which could challenge the basis of preferential hiring toward women. In signing the bill, Gov. Brown acknowledged the bill's "potential flaws" that could prove "fatal" to implementation, but nevertheless supported its passing, citing "recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message" around gender equality.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:18PM (5 children)
Which is best for a corporate HQ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:22PM
Nevada, most definitely. No one wants to make trips to Delaware to visit their corporate HQ. Vegas? Now that's another story. Though I still use Delaware for all my shell companies.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:51PM (2 children)
Panama / Costa Rica / Caiman / Bahamas / Guernsey (or Jersey next door) / Luxembourg (for EU access) ...
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:40PM (1 child)
You forgot Dubai, which has the advantage of not having an extradition treaty with the USA last I heard
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday October 03 2018, @08:35PM
True, but in Dubai you have to ask for passports first, and only screw the slaves who got theirs taken away. Their justice is pretty swift if you seem to have slighted the true locals.
And I'll take the weather/landscapes of just any other one on my list over Dubai ...
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:25PM
I oppose this law, not as a diversity issue, but seeing as it part of California's anti-business attitude. Their legislators are driving small businesses and the associated middle class out of the state.
If you can, leave the state and start a new corporation under the same name in a new state and merge the old California corporation into it. That's known as an "F reorganization".
IMO, avoid Nevada. It's on its way to becoming a "California". They raised their corporate taxes to support the marijuana smoking, Hillary supporting new residents. Given what happened in California, Nevada will just get worse.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:19PM (24 children)
Next up will be a law in California allowing people to change the gender on their birth certificate so they can become "Board Women". /s
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:30PM (18 children)
Surely the moonbeam stasi would never assume somebodies gender and blindly accept the social constructionist theory of gender over biological sex? Or are they planning to discriminate against gender fluid individuals?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:41PM
Just keep your gender fluids to yourself.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:09PM (16 children)
Only somebody who believes that gender is 100% a social construct can say with certainty that it is not possible that the brain is a gendered organ with biological sex. Such a person would need to explain toy preferences shown by infants in the crib, for example, in terms of socialization. It seems more plausible that the brain is, in fact, a gendered organ. But let us evaluate the implications either way.
If the brain is a gendered organ, that allows us an argument against laws such as these. Then we may propose that men and women have different preferences, independent of socialization. Therefore, we cannot necessarily attribute the disproportionate prevalence of males in board rooms to discrimination, and it may not even be possible to have an equal number of women in board rooms.
However, if one says that gender is 100% a social construct and that the brain is not a gendered organ, then one must admit that the only possible explanation for the disproportionate prevalence of males in board rooms either due to explicit discrimination or cultural misogyny. Therefore, if the brain is not a gendered organ, then we must enact laws such as these. If the brain is not a gendered organ, then the lack of women in board rooms has no rational basis.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:21PM (15 children)
That's too simplistic. The fact that there is some biological basis to gender expression is why I'm not a TERF; I see transgender conditions as birth defects, same as homosexuality likely is, and yes, that means I consider myself a defect in that sense. Gender identity is weird in that it has some biological basis and some sociological basis, and what people end up identifying as is going to depend somewhat on their cultural milieu.
In India, for example, someone we'd call a transwoman might call herself hijra, and be recognized as a third gender entirely. Some (American) Indian cultures have the concept of two-spirit, or *both* genders in one body. Some cultures would call me third gender despite being entirely cisgender by my culture's standards, because "she has the desires of a man."
In no case does any of this pertain to these laws, or discrimination, which itself is almost entirely culture-bound and to a far larger extent than gender identity.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:50PM (6 children)
No large disagreements here. It is even arguable whether LGBT people are, in fact, "defects." One may construct compelling arguments that LGBT is a feature, not a bug. Additionally, LGBT seems to be a common phenomenon in all mammals.
I hoped to keep it at a level a reactionary could understand. :-)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 03 2018, @10:40PM
However, your assertion of T being found would require some citations, and some less ambiguous definitions of T than the extremely nebulous one in common use (which is pretty much defined by its inverse, and therefore a bit of a cover-all).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @11:14PM (2 children)
According to evolution and nature I am definitely a defect. What's the point in all those resources going to a womb that's never going to bear children? From the PoV of my genes I may as well already be 90 years old with advanced Alzheimer's. Fortunately, as I said before, intelligence means we can tell mother nature to go get stuffed.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @03:49AM
From the POV of your genetic line: yes, you're probably right (and welcome to the 'dead end' gene club, BTW..)
From the POV of nature & evolution: they don't care, that's the way the game's played..
From the POV of humanity: who knows?, depends on your views on the nature of 'tribes', 'races', 'cultures', 'nations' etc, do they constitute meta-organisms?, some sort of metahomo gregis, are we then the 'junk' in the meta-DNA?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @11:47AM
Worker ants don't reproduce - are they defective and a waste a resources? Personal genetic legacy isn't the sole driver.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:03AM (1 child)
why flamebait?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @03:32AM
Why "reactionary"?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @09:28PM (7 children)
My comment above has been modded troll, which is fair but ignores the point I was raising. Rhetorically: Are we legislatively discriminating on the basis of gender identity or biological sex in the name of equality today? One of these options renders the law ridiculous. All else aside, there's a difference between equality of opportunity and outcome. The latter can only ever be discriminatory and authoritarian which is enough for me to oppose this law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @09:35PM (3 children)
This is actually a really good question.
Yes. Legislating on the basis of something as vague as biological sex is ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @10:31PM (2 children)
So how does California know what percentage of men or women are on corporate boards? Is the state government assuming their gender?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:28AM
Yes, but it's good to assume gender if you're promoting feminism, if you're a liberal, or if you're disparaging the right wing.
It's only a bad thing to assume gender if you're a straight white conservative male.
(Equality, my ass.....)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:00AM
More to the point, how many of these 'men' self-identify as women? and does this law, by it's insistence on a quota of Somatically natural females (with no mention of how they self-identify) discriminate against them?, will we see somatically male 'women' being replaced with somatically female 'men'?
Popcorn time..
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday October 03 2018, @10:48PM (2 children)
You randomly insulted a group of people and then were surprised you scored a downmod?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @11:13PM (1 child)
I randomly insulted a bunch of moonbeam stasi of which you, randomfactor are a member?
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Thursday October 04 2018, @10:52PM
Haven't had that particular appellation applied to me before. I'll add it to the collection.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:59PM
I'm pretty sure that is already possible in California.
(Score: 1, Troll) by crafoo on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:39PM (1 child)
Why did you mark this sarcastic? You actually believe that this will not happen?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @09:51PM
I marked it sarcastic to avoid being modded "troll". SN doesn't always have a sense of humor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @08:52AM
No, next up is the requirement to have an intersex person on the board.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 04 2018, @11:10AM
Nah, next up will likely be the law being declared federally unconstitutional with Reed v. Reed [cornell.edu] and the 14th amendment both being cited.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:21PM
I'm glad it's not us men who are forced to be on boring boards, right guys? Let's go to the pub!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:22PM (4 children)
So what you had was a very small pool of women who were already on boards, and now every company needed them. So the professional female board member was born. Most of them gave up their primary position and started serving on multiple boards. That's not uncommon, but in some cases dozens became the norm.
I suppose it could go the other way here, where they opt for unqualified candidates instead.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:29PM
Not that this is a particularly helpful law for all but the smallest, most privileged minority of women, but how do you think board seats are chosen now?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by canopic jug on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:33PM (2 children)
So what you had was a very small pool of women who were already on boards
It's apparently nice work if you can get it, but it's a very small group, maybe 40 or so, holding multiple board positions [ox.ac.uk]. There are many articles about these golden skirts [theguardian.com] as they are called. However, the quotas have done next to nothing to actually get more (or any) women into executive positions [economist.com] there. California has a larger population so the group will be larger but it will most likely still be a tiny group of women sitting on multiple boards.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:46PM (1 child)
...which seems rather predictable.
The problem is that the people who select board members are seeking certain traits, and for whatever reason (whether it's genetic or cultural) those traits seem more likely to be found among men. You can't just tell companies to hire more women without changing what traits they're looking for, otherwise they're going to hire the outlier women who also have those traits...which doesn't actually help diversity and also isn't going to help the average woman move up at all.
They're trying to conceal symptoms rather than fighting the actual disease...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:35AM
They're far-left liberals. What do you expect? These types always seem to think they can legislate away reality...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:26PM (4 children)
Let's take this to its absurd conclusion and have racially balanced sports teams, gender parity in kindergarten classroom teachers and nurses, etc.
"See little Timmy, The QB is in the hospital because he weighs 100 lbs and got sacked by a 300 pounder. It's OK though. John the mediocre nurse and Jane the C-student doctor will be looking after him".
(Score: 5, Funny) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:07PM (3 children)
Yes, do let's.
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMPOSITION OF ALL GROUPS, CLUBS, BOARDS, AND OTHER BODIES IN THE "STATE" OF CALIFORNIA:
ALL PUBLIC BODIES WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MUST CONFORM TO THE BELOW PROPORTIONS. SEVERE PUNISHMENTS FOR VIOLATIONS UNDER THE LAW RANGE FROM EXILE FROM CALIFORNIA TO SEVERE CHASTISEMENT ON TWITTER BY SELF-ABSORBED HOLLYWOOD CELEBRITIES.
AGE AND GENDER REQUIREMENTS:
Persons under 5 years, percent 6.3%
Persons under 18 years, percent 22.9%
Persons 65 years and over, percent 13.9%
Female persons, percent 50.3%
Note: People are legally considered to be the age and gender they "identify" as; California has long rejected any influence of reality.
RACE AND HISPANICNESS REQUIREMENTS:
White alone, percent 72.4%
Black or African American alone, percent 6.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent 1.6%
Asian alone, percent 15.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent 0.5%
Two or More Races, percent 3.9%
Hispanic or Latino, percent 39.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 37.2%
Note: People are legally considered to be the race and hispanicness they "identify" as. See "Age and Gender" for details.
PATRIOTIC AND HOMELAND REQUIREMENTS:
Veterans, percent 4.4%
Foreign born persons, percent 27.0%
Note: People are legally considered to be the veteran status and nationality they "identify" as. See "Age and Gender" for details.
THESE REQUIREMENTS CONFORM TO OFFICIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATIONS [census.gov].
WARNING: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER, REPRODUCTIVE DISORDERS, AND HARM TO ABILITY TO THINK AND REASON.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:49PM (1 child)
Still not as stupid as the state that made Pi = 3
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @06:31PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @08:56AM
What about the religion requirements of at least 55% catholic / protestant and 5% muslim and 1% hindu and 8% atheist and 2% other
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:29PM
I think Intel's fake executive diversity vs AMD's real executive diversity over the last 10 or so years is a good case study.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @04:43PM (18 children)
This seems like too much of a brute-force approach to the issue. It's like affirmtive action; a cosmetic, aspirin-for-cancer approach that doesn't solve the real underlying problems here. I suppose I'd rather have the aspirin than nothing but what worries me is people are going to point to this and say "See? Workplace sexism is OVER!" much like people point to AA as evidence that we live in a post-racial world.
Besides which, this tends to be a class thing more than a gender thing, with all the associated "bro culture" that goes with it. My fear here is that these women will assimilate that culture--the third wave is very big on women and our bodies as capital--and become just as shitty as the men in these positions. Based on my experience with wealthy and even middle-class self-proclaimed feminists, this seems somewhere between likely and inevitable...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:01PM (2 children)
It's worse than that, gender equality by Stalinist decree. If women aren't working the same hours as men and don't want to be on corporate boards (as appears to be the case in Norway [economist.com]) how is it helping them?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:31PM (1 child)
It's helping the privileged, upper-class women the Democratic Party is appealing to (while ignoring the struggles of women in the working class). The context of this article is the #metoo movement and sexual assault, but I think its analysis applies equally here. The Kavanaugh nomination, #MeToo and the politics of petty-bourgeois rage [wsws.org]:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:36PM
I should have been more clear here. This law is appealing to those women, but as GP points out, they may simultaneously be a vocal minority, even in the petty-bourgeoisie. In fact, because they are using fundamentally right-wing authoritarian thinking, their cause is helped if there are simply not enough women available in the petty-bourgeoisie to take these positions. Like all right-wing authoritarians, they will double down when confronted with reality. It's like XML and violence. If it's not working, you're not using enough of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:03PM (1 child)
The underlying problem is securing female voters. Nothing more. Nothing less.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:00PM
It's tragicomic.
The Democratic Party is increasingly unappealing to the working class, including women. This explains why 53% of white women would vote for Donald Trump. However, with the Republican Party pulling out all the stops in alienating women of all social classes, the Democratic Party has no incentive to appeal to working class women. I suppose we shall see if appealing to upper-class women juxtaposed with the Republican Party shitshow is an effective way for the Democratic Party to secure votes from women in general when we look at exit polls later in November.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:37PM (2 children)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/business/women-corporate-boards-california.html [nytimes.com]
It will be struck down and everyone will go back to doing what they do.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:24PM (1 child)
Right, but it is private parties who will have to pay the costs associated with striking it down. Intentionally passing unconstitutional laws is a sort of weird tax.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:30PM
It's economic stimulus for our court system!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:11PM (3 children)
FTFY.
Instead of Uncle Toms, they would become Aunt Thomasinas?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:06PM (2 children)
Precisely. And I have seen this happen already. Once a certain kind of self-described feminist gets enough money, suddenly she's not at all interested in helping out minorities or poor women or especially not victims of underage prostitution; she starts spouting the same shit you hear from the d00dbr0s around her.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by requerdanos on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)
Is it possible that it's not because these certain feminists came under the influence of corrupt masculinity, but rather because they are and always were shallow enough to be interested in helping others of similar or neighboring income and surrounding culture (only), and their income and culture is what changed, not some mysterious gender-related thing? It seems like Occam's razor would prefer such an explanation.
I would suggest that most people have the greatest interest in helping people of similar or neighboring (insert any quality or condition here) because that's the easiest group to identify with without expending extra effort. Many people exist who care about others because it's right, not because the others are like them... But there are a lot more people who claim that they care about everyone, than actually do.
I mean, I volunteer for a non-profit that works in part to identify and rescue victims of human trafficking, and raise awareness of such issues. But I would say that more than 99% of people don't do something like that, even if they are "feminists."
A personal, heart-affecting story: A group I worked with helped a woman to rent a place in a boarding house a few years ago, and she told me with frank happiness "This is the first place I've stayed in a long time where I didn't have to ---- anybody to stay there."
By and large, there seem to be too few people who have compassion and willingness to help. I personally had to be homeless three times before I woke up to this reality and started caring in any meaningful way; I am not just criticizing others here.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 04 2018, @05:41PM
Oh, absolutely correct. But those people ought not call themselves feminist then, because they're taking a term which means "in support of ALL women" and narrowing it down to "in support of the ones I identify with personally." THAT is identity politics, and it's the complete opposite of intersectionality.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:26PM (1 child)
Except there is no cancer, because not having women on the board only triggers snowflakes but does no fucking harm to the company.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:16PM
The cancer here that needs to be cured is a problem for women, not necessarily a problem for "the company."
(Score: 2, Funny) by VLM on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:55PM (1 child)
Have no fear, yonder female identifying carbon based unit, as your internet assigned white knight I will "identify as a woman" to save you from those high paying boardroom positions. I suspect this will be a common solution to the problem. I can't imagine CA govt trying to tell my what I identify as, and they better not assume my pronouns either (I'm identifying as a female who uses male pronouns)
I'm hoping for an amendment to the act to require 10% of board members to identify as Apache Attack Helicopters. I have a copypasta of that if you'd like to see it (and that is a perfectly G rated factual statement, not a euphemism)
Best of luck with your day, and if you're not smiling you should, smiling is good for you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:07PM
Don't quit your day job for the comedy circuit, pal...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:56PM
I've always questioned cause and effect. I. e., the job probably requires some pretty tough driven people, so those are who end up in those spots.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 03 2018, @10:53PM
By pure coincidence (honest, 'guv), I anagrammed Taleb's name for this concept only earlier today:
Dictatorship of the small minority =
Oh no! Dim leftist plot is ... matriarchy
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:47PM (63 children)
Won't somebody think of the men and their fragile egos!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:02PM
Governor Brown could have signed into law that state, county and municipal employees must be gender balanced. Why aren't women interested in these decent paying jobs? [cnn.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:07PM (57 children)
Ergo, the privileged patriarchy doesn't exist. It's a lie.
Same logic applies to all other leftist lies:
Who freed the slaves? Straight white men.
Who gave women the vote? Straight white men.
Who desegregated the nation? Straight white men.
Who instituted affirmative action? Straight white men.
Yet, who gets blamed for the world's racism, sexism, oppression, and intolerance? Straight white men.
The great irony is that this law is sexist; it's just that the privileged class is not "Men", but rather "Women". Ha!
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:30PM (25 children)
Why did it take men until the early 20th century, just over 2,400 years after democracy was invented in Athens, to include women in the democratic process?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:57PM (23 children)
It wasn't until the early 20th century that society had enough wealth (and productivity) to afford educating the non-childbearing non-childrearing HALF of the population.
Also, men have traditionally been the bread-winners, and thus men are the ones who have been subject to taxation; hell, men are still the payers of the majority of tax monies, and women are still the takers of the majority of welfare monies—not exactly symmetric citizenship when it comes to voting on what government should be doing, eh?
Of course, with the enactment of an individual income tax in 1913, it's not surprising that the government would try to get half of the population engaged in taxable work. Why do you think mothering is shit on as denigrating work, but leaving your kids in daycare isn't?
Moreover, men have been the one's subject to conscription (the "draft"; enslavement to the military). Ergo, men got a say in whether their government should go to war. And, you know what? Men are STILL subject to the goddman draft, and indeed could be prosecuted and found guilty of a felony for not "voluntarily" signing up for this duty; you know what you can't do when you've got a felony on your record? YOU CANNOT VOTE!
Do you get this? Seriously. Women get to vote because they turn 18. Men get to vote because they turned 18 AND AGREED TO MILITARY DUTY.
Who's privileged, I ask? Who has real suffrage I ask? WHO? I think we know... It's the same people for whom laws mandate their inclusion on corporate boards.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:12PM (12 children)
Aaaaaaaand who is making men suffer like this? Why, *other men.* So this comes down to class eventually, with the sex/gender issues as a convenient scapegoat for the (rightful!) rage the downtrodden men feel. Rich men and rich mens' sons don't go fight wars. Poor men and poor mens' sons do. Why is that?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:15PM (9 children)
You're moving the goal-posts now.
You've just admitted that it's true. "Straight White Men" are the wrong target for your anger.
Anyway, I disagree with your analysis that rich men are the problem; my reading of history is that rich men have done the most to pull the rest of you out of the dregs. Not only is this true of the Aristocrats, but it's 100x true of the Capitalists.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:27PM (8 children)
On the contrary, dear friend, it's not moving the goalposts at ALL. It's pointing out the roots of what is called "the patriarchy" are as much or more based on class than on sex or gender. Your "reading of history" is also beside the point: nothing says wealth accumulation has to help everyone, and we find that it doesn't, actually; a rising tide lifts all boats, but if you don't have a boat, you'll just be left behind and drown.
It's those same leftists you'll shit all over who got you the 40 hour workweek, unemployment benefits, OSHA, child labor laws, Social Security, etc., and you are cheering on the destruction of these very things that allow life to be better than hellish for the working and middle classes. These things had to be forcibly taken from the Aristocrats and Capitalists, as you insist on spelling it. Look at the mid to late 19th century industrialization in the US and England to see what happens without these protections.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:34PM (6 children)
Those "benefits" are only possible because Capitalist made society so fucking wealthy that they could finally afford to even entertain those ideas.
And, you know what? The rich work more than 40 hours a week, and child labor laws have resulted in young adults who are almost indistinguishable from children.
It's crazy. You're blind both to the foundations of modern society and also to the unintended consequences of do-gooders.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @11:11PM (5 children)
You're telling me that eight-year-olds getting abused and maimed in factories is good for society? Go to Hell. Seriously, go to Hell, and reincarnate in Pakistan somewhere as a kid working in a garment factory. There's your "good for society."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:54AM (3 children)
Besides, why do you blame the factory owners who are providing a job for a poor family, rather than the dubmfuck poor people who just won't quit making more of themselves?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:18AM (2 children)
Tell you what, how about I pay you $5 an hour to rip you open and play Stairway to Heaven on your intestines (after, of course, stretching them to the appropriate tension on a rack of some sort). Sound like a good deal? If not, why not? Extrapolate this to "jobs" where people are maimed, poisoned, outright killed, or just slowly ground down to nothing and then thrown away like a used tissue, and you may see where I'm coming from.
Or you may not, in which case the only future for you is reincarnation in several of those jobs. I'm warning you now, karma is an even bigger bitch than me.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @09:22AM (1 child)
This has been tested a few times now. Are people better off being oppressed and slowly killed by factory work, or not?
The answer is: Yes, they are.
There are other ways. Better ways. Sadly, in today's world, those ways are not viable or used. They tend to be more expensive.
There have been a number of cases recently where a factories have collapsed. Yet another 'oppress the poor with poorly paid factory jobs'. Hundreds have been killed. Thousands put out of work. Where do they go? Back to the villages they came from? To other jobs?
It sucks. It really does. It is awful. Britain had the industrial revolution. America went through the same. Industry builds up, improves, wages rise, conditions improve, and another country starts to bootstrap itself out of agriculture into industry. The world turns.
Yes, have a bleeding heart. No, we can't change the world or save everyone today.
We can only hope that tomorrow is just like today, perhaps a little better.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 04 2018, @03:57PM
You have such clouded, incomplete vision. I will grant you that, maybe, and this is ONLY a maybe, that sort of industrialized horror is necessary *once* in *one* place in the globe, and this is due more to ignorance about alternatives due to simply not having them in one's worldview than any hard laws of physics. Once it's been seen, it should never happen again, doubly so in a world with today's technology.
Once one place managed to hit post-scarcity regarding water and power, there is no excuse, ever, for that kind of industrial Hell on earth to exist. I'm trying to be charitable here and assume you simply lack imagination and vision, but a dark part of me suspects you want people--so long as they're not you--to suffer like that for some reason.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @02:27AM
Little girls should be married to men: see: laws of YHWH.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @10:47PM
This is true. The Greek "patriá" meant tribe or family, patriarch simply means head of the group. The male head of the household was called "kyrios". Nobody tell the lunatics over here [sjwiki.org] they got this as backwards as the rest of their nonsensical, pseudo-religious ideology.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Thursday October 04 2018, @02:34AM (1 child)
Women aren't subject to the draft, and that's fair because they don't have the right to vote. (decided before universal suffrage, not changed because the legal system values 'finality' - and because they don't want to catch that hot potato)
Since aristocracy is being brought up: gender/class/race conflict is a tool of those at the top of the hierarchy to stay there. Participating in the pot stirring they engender is playing into their hands. (take with as many grains of salt as you need)
How about recognizing that the desires, inclinations and innate strengths of each gender are (on average) different? Those result in unequal outcomes. Women seem to suffer from the mental illness that'd prompt someone to work 80 hours a week less often than men, for example. (+1 for female sanity) So address injustice, but don't cause injustice. There is a difference in what's fulfilling for individuals that has a gender component (on average), and that's ok. - also don't pigeon hole anyone because of gender/race/etc
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:08AM
I'm with you on that. Seems like common sense and basic human decency are taking a backseat to agendas, though... :/ And I have no idea how to fix that.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:13PM
Obviously, I meant:
It wasn't until the early 20th century that society had enough wealth (and productivity) to afford educating the childbearing, childrearing HALF of the population.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:15PM (8 children)
- Are you saying that educated women did not exist prior to the 20th century?
- Are you saying that all men who were included in democracy were educated?
- What constitutes sufficient education for inclusion in the democratic process?
- Can you demonstrate that women had a say in how their bodies were used and voluntarily chose motherhood for the greater good?
- How do you account for barren women who were also deprived of inclusion in the democratic process?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:31PM (7 children)
In a time of extremely limited resources, and a history of war and famine and uncertain fate, 2 things were decided by the collective:
As an efficiency, all aspects of life were organized into hierarchies, including the family; the familial hierarchy was represented by the head of the household, who was invariably the person who was tasked with going out into the harsh world to gather resources and provide: the Father.
The King was at the very top of the social hierarchy, but as Noble heads of household got wealthier, they too wanted a say; to avoid incessant war, Parliaments were created to give the Nobles a say (it's in the name "Parliament"), and the Kings' power was increasingly constrained to this parliamentary vote.
As the Commoner heads of household got wealthier, they too wanted a say. And, so, the House of Commons (and the like) were created.
Then, as women became more independent do to the Industrial Revolution, they too wanted a say.
DO YOU FUCKING GET IT YET?????????!!!!11111
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @08:00PM (6 children)
No, I don't get it, Ms. Vim. You haven't answered any of my questions.
How does your analysis account for a long list of female hereditary rulers [wikipedia.org]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @08:06PM (5 children)
That long list just emphasizes my point.
Also, I don't know what "Ms. Vim" means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @08:14PM (4 children)
Somebody from your school of writing technique had argued that gender in the English language is reflective of whether something is special or not. That person was very convincing, and she also helped me to understand that anarcho-capitalism is a feasible but only after men have been eradicated. You're very special, so I figured it would be best to use female forms of address with you.
- Are you saying that the right to vote has been historically tied to economic class?
- Why were those female rulers going out into the world and providing for their people instead of being engaged with raising children?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @08:58PM (2 children)
The only reason they are of note is because they were the exception; the fact that they represent an exception proves the rule I've outlined.
Put another way, you're arguing that I should have written "almost invariably" rather than "invariably". So what?
Obviously, their exceptional positions derive from their economic pedigree; their families were wealthy enough to afford preparing them for such a role, or they represented a placeholder for a man who is or would be worthy of such a role (at the time or in the near future). And, besides economic class, there are the aforementioned political issues around voting, such as whether one is subject to the draft—if you're subject to the draft, you have the privilege to vote; if you're a woman, then you have the privilege to vote... because... well... because you've got a vajayjay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @09:43PM (1 child)
Are you saying that the reason we do not see many female rulers is because more men than women come from families wealthy enough to prepare them for such a role?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @10:47PM
A woman is inherently valuable for the fact that she can bear children, and she's inherently invaluable because of her relative physical weakness; if you're going to spend resources building an educated mind and a productive body, it's best to spend it on males, who are otherwise pretty worthless. This was especially true in the not-distant past.
Strangely, the statistics seem to show that wealthy families birth more males than females, whereas poor families tend to birth (or at least nurture) more females than males. It's not much difference, but it's there. Maybe that's mother nature's way of mixing the classes. So, yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @09:24AM
https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/woman-world/list?title_no=100912&page=1 [webtoons.com]
We have a comic for that.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 03 2018, @11:03PM
Learn some freaking history, please.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:51PM (14 children)
Who
freedenslaved the slaves? Straight white men.Who
gave womenset up the vote for men only? Straight white men.Who
desegregatedsegregated the nation? Straight white men.Who
instituted affirmative actionkept the nation segregated after the Civil War? Straight white men.(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:11PM (11 children)
You think immuno-decificient white men just waltzed into diseased Africa to take their pick of warrior tribal peoples? Get real! They BOUGHT them.
Black tribes enslaved rival black tribes, and sold them to Arabs, who castrated them (hence the small black population there today).
Whites bought slaves too, but purchased them according to contract law as indentured servants, just like the Irish were bought as indentured servants in order to travel to the New World; as per the contract, they'd become Freed Men after some number of years.
The first legally recognized slaveholder in what would become the US was... a BLACK AFRICAN named Anthony Johnson, who had been a slave and who was purchased as an indentured servant, and then freed as per the contract; however, he purchased his own laborers, but wrote the contract so as to make them slaves, a case which went to court and ruled in his favor.
The white slaveholders of the South were a TINY minority of all white people. Meanwhile, in the West, slavery became a taboo subject; the British outlawed it throughout their empire, and the U.S. fell increasingly into international disrepute until the Civil War, when a bunch of white men killed a bunch of other white men all to ensure the rights of a few black men.
Neither Slavery nor Segregation was not a "white" thing; after all, it was a phenomenon of the South (and of other parts of the non-white world). Rather, segregation was a government program, and a political retaliation for the "War of Northern Aggression" (the Civil War). It was a "government" thing; you weren't allowed to serve whites and blacks together, even if you wanted to do so, BY LAW.
In short, the world is a lot messier than your stupid narrative "Whites bad, mkay?".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:16PM (10 children)
Which explains why several states explicitly listed slavery as a reason for attempting secession, no?
Hmm, you made an interesting class-based point, though: most southern whites weren't slaveowners. It was a minority. A wealthy minority, who of course wanted the slavery gravy train to continue, and were willing to go to war over it. And it was largely those non-slave-owning southern whites who died for the Confederacy rather than the wealthy slaveowners, no?
THIS is why I keep telling people, unless you're wealthy as hell, you have more in common with others of your class whatever their skin tone than you do with others of your hue who have tremendously more money than you. Race, sex, gender, all of it is being used as a divide-and-conquer by the elite to keep themselves wealthy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:53PM (6 children)
As you suggest, Wealth is a state of mind; the poor have a poor state of mind.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @11:13PM (5 children)
Excuse me?! No, I did not suggest any such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth and stop trying to turn me into a voice for whatever insane laissez-faire gibbertarian gibberish you're pushing.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:13AM (4 children)
You're being trolled by someone who wants to mock your serious approach to this topic. Thanks for your points Azuma, spot on as usual.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:59AM (3 children)
"Stick to your own kind" and then eventually "Kill the Bourgeoisie! Hang them in their Sunday best with their own neckties!"
You know what's a serious approach? Think wealthy! Act like that which you want to become. There is NOTHING respectable about being poor.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:11AM (2 children)
Good habits alone don't make someone wealthy, and many wealthy people have awful habits. Hell, I'm completely straight-edge, live like a monk, and manage to save money on 20K a year gross, and I STILL ended up homeless for a while back in 2010. I don't think you're actually arguing in good faith, though; I think you're just here to stir shit up. Away to your bridge, troll.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:24PM (1 child)
You're not thinking wealthy - your thinking has adapted to being poor. There's a huge difference.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 04 2018, @03:58PM
Explain to us, oh master sage of wealth, in great detail, what "thinking wealthy" entails, and what resources and pre-existing wealth is necessary in order to put those thoughts into action. In. Detail. I'll wait.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Spamalope on Thursday October 04 2018, @02:59AM
-sigh-
The motivations at the beginning of the civil war were tangled. It was not one thing, especially at the start. Motivations were very different depending on the state, and the social class of the individual. In border states enlisting to protect your home from attack and looting was a common reason and legit. Resisting attempts at overt control via the industrial North looking to treat the South as a colony had some basis in the record as well.
As did pure racism, bigotry and greed (exploitation motive). Those beliefs existed all around though. (aka racism was common in the North, as was a desire by some industrialists to expliot... well, everyone else)
Once emancipation declarations were used as threats in an attempt to end secession the whole war over slavery as a general thing became galvanized as a reason, but that was after the start - far more confused before then. And you could argue that the fugitive slave act, which required northerners to cooperate with an help pay for the capture of escaped slaves so outraged the non-slave states that it's the real cause of the war. But - the outrage wasn't necessarily the slaves so much as shifting the financial burden (i.e. there is lots of bad and worse, not good and bad when it comes to the slavery issue).
The TLDR though is that it's complicated. Not as an excuse, but that there is more blame to throw around for more topics than Slavery and even with Slavery there are few figures you could call good vs a dogs breakfast of bad and worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brAsC_MEAxY&list=PLALopHfWkFlGOn0oxjgp5gGzj-pnqeY0G [youtube.com] This series on historical controversies by Chris Calton is quite good - start at episode 13 for the civil war. It's long but very interesting. (he's at episode 58 and still just at the beginning of the actual war - but really the tangled situation at the start is interesting and takes time to come to grips with) Not endorsing anything else on the channel - just Chris's work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:17PM
Yes, it does explain. The rich land/slave owners also ran the government (you had to own land to vote). The rich land/slave owners had an incentive to keep slavery legal. Poor free-people were economically disadvantaged by slavery - jobs they could have had were given to slaves, and they were often coerced into shareholding and similar agreements that made them little more than serfs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @06:44PM
Death to the aristos!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:08AM
Eyak, Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian Cultures of Alaska [alaskanative.net]:
http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_groups/fp_nwc6.html [firstpeoplesofcanada.com] :
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @09:42AM
Actually, black people enslaved black people for a long time.
Arabs enslaved white people for centuries. They still do. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408398/Amanda-Lindhout-Somalia-hostage-beaten-starved-gang-raped-forced-birth-captivity.html [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:52PM
Fucking christ nooooo you dumbass.
Just because the legislators were mostly straight white men does not mean they were the ones doing the hard work. Women fought for the right to vote, slaves fought for the right to be free. Sure plenty of straight white males helped out too but you're reactionary "muh uppreshun" is ridiculous. The forces of actual oppression are overwhelmingly coming from straight white males. No need to feel guilty about that if you aren't an oppressive asshole, so stop whining like you're being sent to a "reeducation" camp.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:09PM (1 child)
That's like my wanting credit for taking my boot off your neck.
All those human violations were instituted by "Straight white men". They acquiesced after facing overwhelming opposition from the oppressed.
Apparently, you're still sick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @09:28AM
You don't sound appreciative.
Let's just go back to the way things were in the 1800s then shall we.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:10PM (8 children)
Do you understand that the same people who did all these things needed to have their asses kicked, to varying degrees and in varying ways, all up and down the aisle before they did? And tons of them seem to resent the hell out of these changes?
Look, let me put it this way: if I torture you 2/3 to death, do I suddenly become a good person when I stop the actual torture and just smack you in the face a few times a day randomly? Does it change the fact that I broke your body and mind over and over almost to the point of death? No. No it does not.
Christ, to think someone would be evil and stupid enough to actually post that unironically...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:37PM (2 children)
Ergo, Asses got kicked => No Patriarchy.
This whole "Patriarchy" idea is patently false. It's so stupid that it cannot even withstand the simplest logical analysis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @12:15AM (1 child)
Damn you're stupid. Like really dumb. Just smart enough to read and type, but too stupid to say anything useful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @01:03AM
Not an argument.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @01:01AM
Ergo, Asses got kicked => No Patriarchy.
This whole "Patriarchy" idea is patently false. It's so stupid that it cannot even withstand the simplest logical analysis.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:30PM (3 children)
Ergo, Asses got kicked => No Patriarchy.
This whole "Patriarchy" idea is patently false. It's so stupid that it cannot even withstand the simplest logical analysis.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 04 2018, @05:39PM (2 children)
You said this a few times. It's no more true for the repetition. By that logic, the US isn't a superpower because we got our asses kicked in 'Nam.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 05 2018, @06:03AM (1 child)
The U.S. is strong, but it ain't the power Americans want to believe, as proved over and over.
Get it yet?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 05 2018, @03:57PM
Oh I get exactly what you're *trying* to say. And it's bullshit. You may as well say Superman isn't actually a superhero because he hasn't won every single fight he ever got in. Go troll somewhere else you obsessive little booger.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @10:58PM
... but try to fuck a sheep one time ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @02:32PM (2 children)
Who kept humans as slaves for thousands of years? Straight white men, until a few caved to pressure.
Who kept women from the vote for almost a hundred years? Straight white men, until a few caved to pressure.
Who kept the nation segregated for as long as possible? Straight white men, until a few caved to pressure.
Who kept women and minorities from equal employment and education opportunities for as long as possible? Straight white men, until a few caved to pressure.
Who constantly whines about women and minorities being "privileged"? Straight white men.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 04 2018, @04:33PM
It doesn't even make sense; why would a few caving make any difference?
Your mind is warped.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 05 2018, @06:04AM
It doesn't even make sense; why would a few caving make any difference?
Your mind is warped.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday October 03 2018, @06:29PM (1 child)
This is an emergency alert message sent by the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. Please remember to respect women. No further action is needed.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:59PM
Mine said "No Collusion".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Wednesday October 03 2018, @07:35PM (1 child)
If anyone is guilty of a fragile ego it certainly isn't straight white men. You haven't been paying attention to the modern world. Fragile egos abound. Just look for those unwilling to have a conversation about their beliefs and instead shout down anyone questioning their opinions.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday October 05 2018, @10:51PM
Sounds just like Fox News and right wing talk radio,