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: 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.