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: 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.