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: 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!