https://apple.news/AmBFWCEWFRdKISNRA9aYOZw So instead of choosing the most qualified person, we will have to choose based on gender. So if all the applicants are male, we’ll ignore them? Dumb ass law...
The bar drops again ...
Women representation is definitely required at the top. It’s the need of the hour.
The message I'm getting in 2018 is that women are incredibly fragile and weak people who have proven shouting people down will get them their wishes
Kind of hard to join the conversation when most of the time the door isn’t even open.
“Most of the time”? Why.. are top people going out of their way to prevent women from joining? There’s plenty of women at the top. Eg. Carly Fiorina was HP CEO since the early 2000, Facebook COO was a woman, etc.
People from India are so used to this. We have 50% quota in education and government jobs..and now they are thinking of doing it in the private sector. California is now following India on this!
Still unfair. We’ll need at least 1 homosexual, 1 immigrant, 1 Asian, 1 black, 1 brown, 1 gender non binary, and 1 with disability to make it a complete panel
At least nine of each. For each working age group defined by generation, and for three body types. Also one just for 5'6" Indian men.
Dumb question but how does anyone, regardless of gender, get a corporate board position?
So what does one have to do to get noticed by the board or shareholders? I’d love to be wrong but sounds like another privilege thing to me. You’ll get nominated if the board member or shareholder went to Harvard and you did too. So unless you were buddies with them or are somehow influential, these positions are not accessible for minorities, let alone women. Right? Isn’t this a good thing then?
'somehow influential' ... what causes influence? what causes a person to 'get noticed' ? providing value leads to influence and exceptionalism leads to getting noticed. privilege-oriented thinking/expectations do not align well with needs/functions of corporate boards/leadership. general success is built on ability and willingness to contribute vs 'being someone,' judging the validity of others' contributions, and voicing subjective opinions about utopian fairness ideals. aggressive, anglo men invented the corporation and this influence carries into the present day. it seems the real 'privilege' granted is by society that does not question the materialist, aggressive drudgery
I have a question: why do we have two senators from each state? What if <insert-random-state> decided tomorrow that they have a 100 "smarter" people and so we needn't pick senators from other states. Like who the fuck cares about <insert-other-random-state> anyways. What would you say to that? Isn't diversification based on sex just another metric of diversification just like diversification based on state boundaries? Also, considering a 50/50 split between men and women (roughly) wouldn't you consider this diversification based on sex more statistically reasonable than diversification based on states? You know, considering a state like California has almost 10 times the population of Alabama?
If you have the time and don't mind putting in the effort, mind elaborating and enlightening me?
The government shouldn’t have a say on what private companies do with their boards. If they can prove that the companies are discriminating against women, they are always free to fine them.
Public corporations doesn’t mean owned by the state. Regulations that are discriminatory shouldn’t be allowed in a free capitalist society.
Either way, I thought discrimination based on gender and race wasn’t supposed to be state policy ever since the Civil Rights movement.
No it’s not dumbass. Diversity brings a lot to the table. But I guess your tiny mind cant comprehend that. Feel threatened? Good.
Never say diversity does NOT bring anything to the table. But requiring a gender for a SPECIFIC job is dumb. Why not make this for ALL jobs?
Show me where my post show I “feel threatened”.