No, this is just false.
The biggest factor why females on average get paid less and arent memebers of the board is largely to their educational choices.
Females are less likely to be a board of a tech company because their education is outside of those realms.
I also dont believe in Geneder being equal in a sense. Both Male and Females arw biologically different hence why both are good at something that the others arent.
Its specially obvious in meduim business that has something to do with something physicall. A consturction company will likely have an all male board because its a largrly male industry and many other examples.
What will happen in this situation is that females will have jobs where other males are more qualified to do.
Again Educational choices here is the biggest contributing factor specially in a tech state like california.
Dont lie to me and tell me tech education isnt largely male
It's not just educational choices. It's life style choices. Men focus on their career much more than women. There are just biological differences that lead to differences at the highest and lowest ends of society. Men will dominate boardrooms but also prisons/homeless populations. The left is pretending men and women are the same though and attributing everything to discrimination.
Truth is this will only create a lot BMINOs. Board members in name only.
Technically, you're completely wrong. We're talking about this particular law, of which you are completely ignorant.Technically, he's right. A dude with a is a tranny/male.
Today's sociopath
As you always are.
lol derp
Bunch of pretend alpha males scared of some alleged inferior women compe ion.
Srsly, not a fan of government mandating this, although, it's difficult to see in which other way you can bring diversity to that position. Don't forget that males are actually a minority in this world, tbh, this would barely make things more representative.
Food for thought.
It's not compe ion if women automatically get it.
Rule 1: less males
Rule 2: more POC
Connect the dots. If you plan/or already have a white son you are decreasing their chances for success.
Of course it is. They only get one spot and if they prove to be inferior, then this law will inevitably fail in the long run.
Which part are you doubtful about?
There's no talent required to be on a board, and the athletics issue is merely entertainment, so a law could state the same for franchises that have both women and men playing for them, even on different teams.
Like anyone here is going to not make a board because of this. I don't think the law will apply to line cooks and customer service desks.
Bunch of pretend alpha males scared of some alleged inferior women compe ion.
Srsly, not a fan of government mandating this, although, it's difficult to see in which other way you can bring diversity to that position. Don't forget that males are actually a minority in this world, tbh, this would barely make things more representative.
Food for thought.
Plus there's benefits to the board too, tbh, they get a cook, and can actually save on salary...
True.
I own a small hvac/plumbing company and the men are the one's who bring in the $$. I have two girls in my company but the only things they could do is dispatching and office work. They can't do any construction or heavy lifting which this industry requires. They also dont like working long hours or weekends. Most men will do in order to pay the bills.
I'd like New York to mandate equal pay for equal work so that the women have to play best of 5 sets at US Open just like the men to earn the same amount of money.
Or allowing males identifying as women to compete in women's sports - wonder who the left will side with.
You didn't say lawfully (not that you've supported that point, anyways); you said technically. Last I checked xy chromosome is technically male (certainly the default definition).
"completely ignorant"
The amount of sets isn't relevant. Male tennis players should get based on the dollars they bring in. Women getting the same is just special treatment. That treatment isn't isolated to tennis prizes.
That there is that much of a talent gap in the sexes that a small minority of seats allocated to women would force many if any companies to relocate; especially given the fact that board positions are often somewhat ceremonial in the first place.
That said, I'm not for affirmative action. Discrimination is not how discrimination should be fought.
I intentionally didn't use the term "relocate".
New companies build headquarters all the time, and they pick cities in which to do so. Making this kind of barrier for existing boards to come to California only makes cities like Austin more attractive. I don't think talent has anything to do with board positions. I think it's about where you are in the business world.
Definitely, California's lack of a business friendly climate will hurt them. But there's a too big to fail mentality; and I'm not sure they're wrong. And the freeloaders are going to keep voting in Democrats. Republicans are nearly extinct in California at the state level. The ones that there are are essentially glorified Democrats.
And the left wants a very long ing run.
Considering that pretty much only relatively large companies have a board, and those also tend to be the biggest campaign donors, it's a fairly safe bet that politicos will hear soon enough about the result of this experiment.
Have you seen the idiotic politcal stuff some companies have done recently?
Like what?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote