California now the first state to require women on corporate boards
43 replies, posted
Another potential problem here is the encouragement of business dynasties which are never good
So now instead of having a proper chance for qualified people to end up on director's boards, it's just a few guys and their wives who were given seats to meet the diversity quota.
Nobody who argues for quotas thinks unqualified people should be brought onto these corporate boards. If that's what you think will happen, you're implying that there are no qualified women. I feel like I need to see some evidence for that, because I don't believe that's true. Also, show evidence that quotas lead to unqualified people being hired. The situation clearly isn't solving itself anyhow, for the time being.
The idea behind quotas is to temporarily force a breakthrough. When the cultures within companies have changed enough, the quota's can be abolished again.
I agree -- I really don't believe the argument that a public company can't find at least one qualified woman to serve on a board.
if that was the case, why wouldn't they do that already? a board seat means voting rights
how so?
Actually no, that's not what I'm implying thanks for jumping right to I'm sexist for being skeptical of sexist quotas doing anything good though. What I'm implying is that the kinds of people who need these quotas to force them to bring women on board are the kind of people to use just about any means required to keep their hold on their position of power and maintain their "boys club" board of directors bullshit. Shitbag executives aren't going to change their ways just because you legally force them to hire more women, and any company where you'd actually want to be a female board member is going to hire you based on merit anyway, a quota doesn't change that, if anything it'll make shit worse when the inevitable shitbags assume you were brought on for that diversity quota instead of merit.
There are obviously plenty of amazing women in positions of power and plenty more who are more than qualified for positions of power, to assume otherwise is fucking retarded. Also here's something to think about, maybe many women don't want quotas either?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/datafreaks/2014/10/16/gender-quotas-in-hiring-drive-away-both-women-and-men/#7f2ceaf12350
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/02/09/why-american-women-hate-board-quotas/?utm_term=.ed72c0a9787f
It's not even whether or not quotas actually cause token hires, it's not about whether or not the person is qualified, it's about the fact that it causes a massive stigma against women, even by these hired women and other women, based on the theoretical possibility that they may have been hired not for their qualifications, but because of the quota. Imagine being a 4.0 GPA, top of your class female engineer and getting hired by a firm that has a gender quota for hiring. Did you get hired for your hard work and qualifications? According to that Forbes article, women were 18% more likely to think they weren't. Even if they were.
Well, thanks for jumping right to accusing groups of male workers to be part of a misogynistic mentality.
Yeah, it is. This is one of numerous concerns regarding affirmative action, which people should have every right to criticize when there is evidence of it being counter-productive. And thank you for going on to prove that point.
This is almost word-for-word the same argument put forward for Harvard's institution of an affirmative action program for accepting black students. There are tons of applicants, so surely they have qualified black applicants, right? Critics are just implying that there are no qualified black students!
Now Harvard has a culture problem because their black students underperform, and there's a perception that black students are there because of affirmative action rather than their own skill (a claim which is supported by statistical evidence), reinforcing the racial biases that they sought to address in the first place.
Don't forget the resentment from the groups you're throwing under the bus to maintain that forced representation, too.
The fact is that as soon as you institute a quota, standards are going to be relaxed and you're going to see less-qualified candidates chosen over more-qualified ones. Sooner or later someone will be stuck on an executive board who isn't qualified for it, solely because a company had to meet legal compliance.
since being on a board can be argued as a form of employment, this is against the law.
it'll be even moreso against the law if the 28th amendment gets ratified
What 28th amendment?
It's now far-right narrative? Seriously? Doing things like this just like decades ago is now far right? What's so wrong that hiring people based on their qualifications (like always) sparks so much controversy apparently?
republicans: "a small handful of corporate god-kings should own this country and rule over the filthy masses"
democrats: "absolutely, but only if half of them are women"
