California has a new law: No more all-male boards (2018)(edition.cnn.com)
edition.cnn.com
California has a new law: No more all-male boards (2018)
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/30/business/california-requires-women-board-of-directors/index.html
15 comments
Never seen a thread removed as dupe for being posted 6 months ago. Old news is reposted on HN daily. It’s hard to see this moderation as being anything other than political.
Please see the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html. Reposts are allowed after about a year. Otherwise, if a story has significant attention already, we mark reposts as dupes. This is standard HN moderation.
I'm not sure what amazes me more: that we can do something routinely every day, and users still report never having seen it; or that people rush to assume political skulduggery as the explanation for whatever they do see.
I'm not sure what amazes me more: that we can do something routinely every day, and users still report never having seen it; or that people rush to assume political skulduggery as the explanation for whatever they do see.
[deleted]
About 30 years ago, I read as much as I could to try to understand why I had ended up with some "barefoot and pregnant" type life as the full-time wife in a 1950s style marriage. My takeaway: European women did better than American women in terms of greater wage parity, etc, because they focused on getting accommodation for the burden of bearing children plus help carrying the burden of rearing the children.
Quotas seem unlikely to work as long as America continues to be the only developed nation that lacks paid maternity leave as a kind of "canary in the coal mine" test of this issue.
My sons are adults. I'm post menopausal. I'm largely out of touch with childcare issues today. But our continued lack of maternity leave makes me feel that we are likely still in the dark ages on this issue.
Quotas seem unlikely to work as long as America continues to be the only developed nation that lacks paid maternity leave as a kind of "canary in the coal mine" test of this issue.
My sons are adults. I'm post menopausal. I'm largely out of touch with childcare issues today. But our continued lack of maternity leave makes me feel that we are likely still in the dark ages on this issue.
California does have 6 weeks of paid maternity leave. Some companies pay 100% but the state guarantees 60-70% depending on how much you make.
Thank you. I wasn't aware of that.
It's still a really short period of time compared to most developed countries. Here's a list (from 2012) I was able to find with a quick search:
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/22/maternity-leaves-arou...
According to the article, Japan provides 14 weeks. Germany provides 14 months.
So 6 weeks seems like a drop in the bucket on this issue.
It's still a really short period of time compared to most developed countries. Here's a list (from 2012) I was able to find with a quick search:
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/22/maternity-leaves-arou...
According to the article, Japan provides 14 weeks. Germany provides 14 months.
So 6 weeks seems like a drop in the bucket on this issue.
> According to the article, Japan provides 14 weeks.
They provide 14 weeks maternity, then top it up to a year for either parent (but is overwhelmingly taken by the mother):
> Japan also has childcare leave, which applies to both parents. This period begins after the guaranteed maternity leave mentioned earlier and runs until the child reaches the age of 1. This leave may be extended until the child reaches 14 months old, if both parents take leave, while it can extend to 18 months if only one parent takes leave. [1]
Agree on all your points. Canada would be another comparator, where there is 50 weeks (at 55% pay) or up to 84 weeks (at 33% pay) - and many employers will top that up.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/maternity-leave-worldwide-20...
They provide 14 weeks maternity, then top it up to a year for either parent (but is overwhelmingly taken by the mother):
> Japan also has childcare leave, which applies to both parents. This period begins after the guaranteed maternity leave mentioned earlier and runs until the child reaches the age of 1. This leave may be extended until the child reaches 14 months old, if both parents take leave, while it can extend to 18 months if only one parent takes leave. [1]
Agree on all your points. Canada would be another comparator, where there is 50 weeks (at 55% pay) or up to 84 weeks (at 33% pay) - and many employers will top that up.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/maternity-leave-worldwide-20...
To be clear it applies to their California employees.
I worked for a company HQed in the valley. With much fanfare they announced their paid leave program.
A few months later my second child was born and I filled out the paperwork. HR returned it to me telling me to fill out the unpaid leave paperwork....and to write them a check for healthcare....
I worked for a company HQed in the valley. With much fanfare they announced their paid leave program.
A few months later my second child was born and I filled out the paperwork. HR returned it to me telling me to fill out the unpaid leave paperwork....and to write them a check for healthcare....
Canada has 55 weeks which is not bad.
Clear violation of federal Civil Rights Act. Gender and race cannot be factors in employment. Why waste time with blatantly unlawful legislation?
It is already being used elsewhere.
NSF grants are being rejected with massive frequency if the proposal doesn't document women and minorities being involved in the project.
I am all for diversity. I support providing minorities with opportunities to gain skills needed to excel in a certain field or make them feel welcome. Equality of opportunity is great.
Trying to skew incentives in hope that it will facilitate an inflow of talented minorities is something I've seen no proof of working. Anecdotally or statistically. If anything, it only breeds resentment.
NSF grants are being rejected with massive frequency if the proposal doesn't document women and minorities being involved in the project.
I am all for diversity. I support providing minorities with opportunities to gain skills needed to excel in a certain field or make them feel welcome. Equality of opportunity is great.
Trying to skew incentives in hope that it will facilitate an inflow of talented minorities is something I've seen no proof of working. Anecdotally or statistically. If anything, it only breeds resentment.
NSF grants favoring diverse groups and outlawing private corporations that don't meet diversity quotas is a false equivalency
CRA and EEOC require equal opportunity regardless of gender. California’s data shows that women are consistently being treated unequally on corporate boards. Their law reduces unequal treatment. Please define in terms of CRA or EEOC how you think this law will result in an increase of unequal treatment and thus be in violation?
what data? having less women isnt proof of unfair treatment
forcing companies to hire based on gender is a very bad idea
forcing companies to hire based on gender is a very bad idea
Is serving on the board considered employment? What if it’s not paid?
See also California's unconstitutional gun control laws.
They believe they have moral superiority on their side and federal laws don't apply to them.
They believe they have moral superiority on their side and federal laws don't apply to them.
Unconstitutional is a term that only applies when a court of law has found a violation to occur. Which California gun control law has been found to be unconstitutional by a court of law without further possibility of appeal?
Considering that the fifty states are writing unconstitutional laws faster than the SCOTUS can make room on its calendar, it seems we have a Denial of Service exploit for the constitution.
That's because SCOTUS refuses to hear any gun control cases.
Heller in 2008, McDonald in 2010 and now NYSRPA coming up in 2019 are refusing to hear any gun control cases?
Can you please cite a California gun control law that made it to the Supreme Court but it was not heard?
mynameishere(1)
While noble in its intentions, if flipping the roles is seen as discrimination (no all female boards), it’s discrimination.
This is pretty easy to word neutrally: "No boards where every member has the same gender."
Is this really a problem, though? Do we really expect a situation in which men are systemically prevented from being board members?
Is this really a problem, though? Do we really expect a situation in which men are systemically prevented from being board members?
> Do we really expect a situation in which men are systemically prevented from being board members?
I mean, this law sets requirements on board members genders. So I wouldn't think it's much of a stretch.
I mean, this law sets requirements on board members genders. So I wouldn't think it's much of a stretch.
Sweden made a similar law for sport clubs. 37% of board members are women, 63% are men. Yes, there are boards that is dominated by women.
One of the ten largest sports, horse riding, has a national board with 23% men and 77% women. In the same top ten category, ice hokey has 82% men and 18% women.
Football and Swimming, 56% men and 44% women. Skiing, 50% and 50%. Gymnastics, 44% and 56%. Golf and bandy, 57% and 43%. Athletics 60% and 40%.
Those are the top 10 in the area which my government though was so bad it needed to implement affirmative actions in order to correct it. 37% sounds few but in reality, only two are considered gender segregated and it is one female dominated and one male.
One of the ten largest sports, horse riding, has a national board with 23% men and 77% women. In the same top ten category, ice hokey has 82% men and 18% women.
Football and Swimming, 56% men and 44% women. Skiing, 50% and 50%. Gymnastics, 44% and 56%. Golf and bandy, 57% and 43%. Athletics 60% and 40%.
Those are the top 10 in the area which my government though was so bad it needed to implement affirmative actions in order to correct it. 37% sounds few but in reality, only two are considered gender segregated and it is one female dominated and one male.
How about we just don’t pass sexist laws because we’ve somehow told ourselves that this particular instance of institutional sexism is okay?
We’re already having enough trouble getting people to accept Title IX protects male students, after 40 years of females being the majority in student populations.
I’m not nearly as optimistic about the outcome of intentional sexism as you.
We’re already having enough trouble getting people to accept Title IX protects male students, after 40 years of females being the majority in student populations.
I’m not nearly as optimistic about the outcome of intentional sexism as you.
I'm not sure we could enact any policies that don't look like institutionalized sexism, though. As the Parable of the Polygons [1] shows, merely removing bias from a system isn't enough to break down structures that are already in place. We need to actively de-bias. Board seats are a zero-sum game, so that means we have to take some seats from men to give to women.
This is a good faith question! It doesn't seem to me that there's any real way to remove bias against women without adding bias against men, but I'm genuinely curious as to how we might do so.
[1] https://ncase.me/polygons/
This is a good faith question! It doesn't seem to me that there's any real way to remove bias against women without adding bias against men, but I'm genuinely curious as to how we might do so.
[1] https://ncase.me/polygons/
Board seats are literally not a zero sum game: we can make more in any of several ways.
It troubles me that you’re factually mistaken on basic things like that — new board seats come into existence literally daily, to which every indication shows women are free to compete — but expect me to take your arguments seriously that we should institute bigotry at the highest levels.
No, get your facts straight first.
You’re also trying to respond to empiric failures in the real world with parables and abstract highly simplified models, which is somewhat silly: the decayed state of gender and race relations in the US and elsewhere is due to the sexist and racist policies enacted to “fix” things, and somewhere between 1990 and 2000 started stepping backwards decades of progress, with the situation the worst it’s been in a generation by 2020. Forcing the final steps of integration has been shown time and again to foster generation-scale resentment and undermine healing, particularly through forcing every interaction to be viewed through the lens of base racial or gender tribes. It literally teaches people to be bigots all over again.
A rotten tree bears rotten fruits: I don’t believe you can cause a good outcome through institutional bigotry, and I challenge you to show me it works. It’s certainly been tried enough it should have produced positive results — show me those, and not a cheap game.
Also, yes, merely removing bias in a dynamic system that shows a strong reversion to the mean on generational scales is enough to remove historical bias within just a few generations — a fact that comes directly from analysis of system dynamics and differential equations. Notice that if you drop the bias below 10%, there’s absolutely no problem — it just sort of wanders over long time periods.
To me, you merely seem a fiddler: someone who knows very well that debiasing works on the 3-4 generation scale, you’re just not willing to wait a century because you believe you’re smart enough to use evil for good, and are willing to risk sure progress based on that belief.
I think that’s reckless and immoral.
Reckless because you’re endangering something important — the fixing of gender and race relations in society; and immoral because you’re knowingly doing harm and discriminating, out of some very strange logic that’s making the world “better”.
Your model also has massive failures as a mechanism to explain social situations: it doesn’t, for instance, explain why Asian immigrants have thrived. Were the interned and destitute Japanese incomparably better off than other groups? If not, how does your model explain their recovery and integration compared to other groups?
What the puzzle actually seems to say is that if people have a preference you don’t like, you feel entitled to overrule them because you know better, and your global vision for society is better than the emergent one from individual choices. (The conclusions really seem oriented around forcing people to integrate when their natural tendencies would have them live in more or less homogeneous clusters.)
It’s tyranny gussied up with math: look at how if people have wrongthink preferences, we need to overrule them via force and targeted discrimination for the greater good!
It troubles me that you’re factually mistaken on basic things like that — new board seats come into existence literally daily, to which every indication shows women are free to compete — but expect me to take your arguments seriously that we should institute bigotry at the highest levels.
No, get your facts straight first.
You’re also trying to respond to empiric failures in the real world with parables and abstract highly simplified models, which is somewhat silly: the decayed state of gender and race relations in the US and elsewhere is due to the sexist and racist policies enacted to “fix” things, and somewhere between 1990 and 2000 started stepping backwards decades of progress, with the situation the worst it’s been in a generation by 2020. Forcing the final steps of integration has been shown time and again to foster generation-scale resentment and undermine healing, particularly through forcing every interaction to be viewed through the lens of base racial or gender tribes. It literally teaches people to be bigots all over again.
A rotten tree bears rotten fruits: I don’t believe you can cause a good outcome through institutional bigotry, and I challenge you to show me it works. It’s certainly been tried enough it should have produced positive results — show me those, and not a cheap game.
Also, yes, merely removing bias in a dynamic system that shows a strong reversion to the mean on generational scales is enough to remove historical bias within just a few generations — a fact that comes directly from analysis of system dynamics and differential equations. Notice that if you drop the bias below 10%, there’s absolutely no problem — it just sort of wanders over long time periods.
To me, you merely seem a fiddler: someone who knows very well that debiasing works on the 3-4 generation scale, you’re just not willing to wait a century because you believe you’re smart enough to use evil for good, and are willing to risk sure progress based on that belief.
I think that’s reckless and immoral.
Reckless because you’re endangering something important — the fixing of gender and race relations in society; and immoral because you’re knowingly doing harm and discriminating, out of some very strange logic that’s making the world “better”.
Your model also has massive failures as a mechanism to explain social situations: it doesn’t, for instance, explain why Asian immigrants have thrived. Were the interned and destitute Japanese incomparably better off than other groups? If not, how does your model explain their recovery and integration compared to other groups?
What the puzzle actually seems to say is that if people have a preference you don’t like, you feel entitled to overrule them because you know better, and your global vision for society is better than the emergent one from individual choices. (The conclusions really seem oriented around forcing people to integrate when their natural tendencies would have them live in more or less homogeneous clusters.)
It’s tyranny gussied up with math: look at how if people have wrongthink preferences, we need to overrule them via force and targeted discrimination for the greater good!
Sure, you can make more board seats and allocate them specifically to women, but then you're back to square one. Check out the debate on this not-zero-sum attempt by a YC investor to teach women to program [1].
I can't really find anything that indicates that merely removing bias (which hasn't happened in corporate America, mind you; we're several steps behind that) is sufficient to break down power structures long term. If you have a source, I'd love to see it!
With regard to the polygons simulation, I think you misunderstood it: once they're segregated, they remain so even if you drop the bias to zero. Active de-biasing is necessary to re-integrate them.
Edit: are you seriously suggesting that e.g. race relations in the U.S. are due to affirmative action and not slavery, redlining, Jim Crow, ongoing police brutality, racial sentencing disparity, etc? If so, I think we're done here. FakeComments indeed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19464269
I can't really find anything that indicates that merely removing bias (which hasn't happened in corporate America, mind you; we're several steps behind that) is sufficient to break down power structures long term. If you have a source, I'd love to see it!
With regard to the polygons simulation, I think you misunderstood it: once they're segregated, they remain so even if you drop the bias to zero. Active de-biasing is necessary to re-integrate them.
Edit: are you seriously suggesting that e.g. race relations in the U.S. are due to affirmative action and not slavery, redlining, Jim Crow, ongoing police brutality, racial sentencing disparity, etc? If so, I think we're done here. FakeComments indeed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19464269
Nope, I’m suggesting the change in the trend of race relations is due to affirmative action and other instances of modern institutional racism: it was on a 120-140 year upswing, then started crashing.
I also didn’t meant allocate them specifically to women: women should compete for new board seats, and based on the trends prior to sexist policies being implemented, that alone should be enough for discover equilibrium in a few generations — no need to randomly discriminate to force the result you believe should occur.
That static state of your game is purely an artifact of the game and doesn’t correspond to the real world in any meaningful analogy, because there’s other forces on movement than your unhappiness with the racial composition of your neighbors — why would I support you enacting bigoted policies based on what is literally toy fiction?
All that game concludes is if people aren’t biased, they won’t move because of their neighbors; but if they are, they will. Duh, you built that into the model.
That you’re putting that forward as a serious argument is genuinely frightening.
Also, you should be more specific what you mean by “break down power structures”, what specifically would that look like and what specifically do you mean by “power structures”?
I also didn’t meant allocate them specifically to women: women should compete for new board seats, and based on the trends prior to sexist policies being implemented, that alone should be enough for discover equilibrium in a few generations — no need to randomly discriminate to force the result you believe should occur.
That static state of your game is purely an artifact of the game and doesn’t correspond to the real world in any meaningful analogy, because there’s other forces on movement than your unhappiness with the racial composition of your neighbors — why would I support you enacting bigoted policies based on what is literally toy fiction?
All that game concludes is if people aren’t biased, they won’t move because of their neighbors; but if they are, they will. Duh, you built that into the model.
That you’re putting that forward as a serious argument is genuinely frightening.
Also, you should be more specific what you mean by “break down power structures”, what specifically would that look like and what specifically do you mean by “power structures”?
> While noble in its intentions, if flipping the roles is seen as discrimination (no all female boards), it’s discrimination.
You are overcomplicating things; making a legal distinction is discrimination on the basis used to make the distinction; this is overtly sex discrimination. Your mirror test isn't needed.
Whether it is permissible discrimination likewise does not depend on a mirror test, but on whether (at least, from the perspective of federal Constitutional jurisprudence, using the test that applies to sex discrimination) it serves an important government purpose by means substantially related to that purpose. Which a mirror test of the type you propose doesn't help answer, both because it doesn't answer it for the mirror case and because the mirror case won't be similarly situated compared to the actual legal test unless you mirror all of society, not just the policy.
You are overcomplicating things; making a legal distinction is discrimination on the basis used to make the distinction; this is overtly sex discrimination. Your mirror test isn't needed.
Whether it is permissible discrimination likewise does not depend on a mirror test, but on whether (at least, from the perspective of federal Constitutional jurisprudence, using the test that applies to sex discrimination) it serves an important government purpose by means substantially related to that purpose. Which a mirror test of the type you propose doesn't help answer, both because it doesn't answer it for the mirror case and because the mirror case won't be similarly situated compared to the actual legal test unless you mirror all of society, not just the policy.
[deleted]
I hope they'll not mind someone identifying as trans to get on a board. You get what you measure, and you can hack around all sorts of discrimination.
Edit: To be clear, I do not support, encourage, or condone discrimination of any protected class. You should be able to discriminate by skill level, of course.
Edit: To be clear, I do not support, encourage, or condone discrimination of any protected class. You should be able to discriminate by skill level, of course.
I'm not sure many boards feel the need to hack around it. If you were to ask any all-male board why they don't have any women on it, I'm pretty sure a very small minority would be doing it because they intentionally want to keep women out.
I think most would simply say that it just happened. The number of boards who intentionally conspire to stay all-male is likely very small.
I think most would simply say that it just happened. The number of boards who intentionally conspire to stay all-male is likely very small.
What about gender fluid board members? Will the company be compliant with the law on some days and not on others?
You know, for all the worry about people "identifying as trans in order to do X" it seems to happen very infrequently.
I'm not taking issue with it (ever, really, live your best life), especially when used to obviate quotas. I take issue with "good" discrimination efforts, never how someone identifies or their biological attributes.
Gotcha, I'm sorry I misinterpreted your position!
I mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, but I am (genuinely!) curious as to how we can actively prevent "bad" discrimination without using "good" discrimination. Board seats are a zero-sum game, far more men have them than women, so how can we give more to women without taking some from men?
I mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, but I am (genuinely!) curious as to how we can actively prevent "bad" discrimination without using "good" discrimination. Board seats are a zero-sum game, far more men have them than women, so how can we give more to women without taking some from men?
> so how can we give more to women without taking some from men?
We don't, just like we don't have quotas for roles and say, "This role is being held open for a woman, person of color, or other non-white, non-male person". If it's an all male board, it's an all male board. If it's an all female board, same. You don't legislate discrimination because you feel like it's helpful. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. No mandated quotas. If evidence is uncovered that discrimination is occurring (against any protected class), you pursue legal action against the corporation and its officers.
We don't, just like we don't have quotas for roles and say, "This role is being held open for a woman, person of color, or other non-white, non-male person". If it's an all male board, it's an all male board. If it's an all female board, same. You don't legislate discrimination because you feel like it's helpful. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. No mandated quotas. If evidence is uncovered that discrimination is occurring (against any protected class), you pursue legal action against the corporation and its officers.
I imagine you would probably have to have your gender legally changed before that counts which is more effort than hiring one female to sit in the corner to meet a quota.
[deleted]
The bill actually does cover this explicitly:
>(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
>(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Interesting, so if a female transitioned to a male while on a board where they were previously the only female member they would be fired and replaced?
> I hope they'll not mind someone identifying as trans to get on a board.
You mean, “to avoid also appointing a woman to the board”, presumably.
You mean, “to avoid also appointing a woman to the board”, presumably.
[deleted]
Nope, you're confusing the syntactic definition of discrimination with the semantic definition of discrimination.
No. Reverse discrimination is just that: discrimination
All law is discrimination.
Some is impermissible discrimination, but the test for that isn't “would it be impermissible if reversed”, and not only because that would produce infinite regress with no answer, but because mirroring policy without mirroring social context does not result in mirror policies necessarily falling on the same side of the legal tests of impermissible discrimination.
Some is impermissible discrimination, but the test for that isn't “would it be impermissible if reversed”, and not only because that would produce infinite regress with no answer, but because mirroring policy without mirroring social context does not result in mirror policies necessarily falling on the same side of the legal tests of impermissible discrimination.
But see Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/515/200
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/515/200
Sure, the standard is the same in either direction.
I get what you’re trying to say, but I’m not sure there’s such a thing as the “syntactic definition” of a word.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board are more profitable and productive
That doesn't tell you which is the cause and which is the effect. It could be that companies that hire women for boards are better run to begin with so that forcing poorly run companies to hire women won't make them better.
That doesn't tell you which is the cause and which is the effect. It could be that companies that hire women for boards are better run to begin with so that forcing poorly run companies to hire women won't make them better.
Wait, you mean correlation doesn't equal causation? (I'm being sarcastic, of course)
Now if only they could mandate that every board has to have someone poor on it. Sadly, I doubt that will ever happen.
> Now if only they could mandate that every board has to have someone poor on it.
Unless the board positions are unpaid and merely advisory, then whoever joined would be de-facto not poor. Unless, of course, they were paid minimum wage while everyone else was paid normal wages for board level positions.
Either of those options would be absurdly patronizing, in my opinion.
Unless the board positions are unpaid and merely advisory, then whoever joined would be de-facto not poor. Unless, of course, they were paid minimum wage while everyone else was paid normal wages for board level positions.
Either of those options would be absurdly patronizing, in my opinion.
This seems like an ill-advised game to start playing. Why stop at women? Shouldn't other underrepresented groups be legally entitled to board seats too?
I'm definitely not saying there aren't qualified women or people from other underrepresented groups, but eventually if the quotas are subdivided and specific enough the available talent pool won't support the quota.
I'm definitely not saying there aren't qualified women or people from other underrepresented groups, but eventually if the quotas are subdivided and specific enough the available talent pool won't support the quota.
Why do companies wait so long before IPO these days? Do the restrictions on publicly traded companies grow more burdensome with each passing year?
I'm sure there are many reasons, but one of the reasons is that after you IPO, your business decisions - indeed, the very direction of your company and what products you develop and sell - are dictated not by management, but by shareholders.
That's a lot of control to give up.
That's a lot of control to give up.
[deleted]
It's obvious that any sensible company will just headquarter itself in a friendlier state. California has shot itself in the foot with this law.
The average board has 9 members. If we were to randomly flip a coin 9 times, we'd expect to see 9 of tails/heads about 0.2% of the time.
It is honestly incredibly funny that this comment, about factual probabilities, would get downvoted.
Because it's not relevant. Job positions aren't coin flips. There are more men who work as welders, there are more women that work in nursing, for example.
No, it's relevant, because if we first assume that men and women have equal distributions of skill at being board members, and you are given a choice between one of each at random, some companies would be forced to make sub-optimal choices.
There used to be more male lawyers than female lawyers.
There are more men in construction, let's make it a law to have more women work there.
If you think the reason there are fewer women on construction sites is that they don't want to work there, I'd encourage you to work on a construction site, like I have, and talk to the very few women that work there about their experiences.
Over the last few years there's been a marked increase in women working on construction sites.
Over the last few years there's been a marked increase in women working on construction sites.
Even if that's true, at the end of the day it's going to come down to biological differences. Men are overall, stronger than women, so when you find the best person for the job, you'll most likely end up hiring a bulky man. Same with firefighting where they need to carry heavy equipment and be able to perform their duties safely. So short of hiring women body builders, you're most likely going to end up with a man.
Why don't these "equal outcome" groups make a fuss about that? What about trying to get more men into nursing or day care?
Why don't these "equal outcome" groups make a fuss about that? What about trying to get more men into nursing or day care?
Generally speaking these types of efforts are never about getting more men into various fields, because there's the perception - right or wrong - that men are already unfairly handed opportunities and their associated higher wages.
In other words, in the popular view, it's not discrimination if it happens against men. It's justice.
Note that I'm not advocating for or against this view.
In other words, in the popular view, it's not discrimination if it happens against men. It's justice.
Note that I'm not advocating for or against this view.
Not only is it true, the fact that you're parroting the claim that construction isn't trying to address the gender imbalance of its field demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't seen the "fuss" because you aren't educated, and haven't made an effort to educate yourself, on the topic.
It's easy to throw insults and claims of ignorance. The other poster understood my point and made an appropriate response. You're avoiding answering the issue of bias against men.
Ok here's my answer.
> Why don't these "equal outcome" groups make a fuss about that? What about trying to get more men into nursing or day care?
They do. They are.
> Why don't these "equal outcome" groups make a fuss about that? What about trying to get more men into nursing or day care?
They do. They are.
[deleted]
Good way to build resentment. This is CA after all.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
writepub(2)
Of course, this doesn't (arguably) matter. In California,
persons are allowed to change gender. At some point, Senate Bill 179 can be used to align government documentation, but that doesn't need to happen.
So, prior to a board meeting: "Who is female?". Ok, we are covered.... Don't know what happens after the meeting, but that doesn't matter. For the purposes of the law, the board is not "all-male". Anyone who disagrees can then be taken to court, for discrimination.
That is how I would play this. Just good fun.
FredW
So, prior to a board meeting: "Who is female?". Ok, we are covered.... Don't know what happens after the meeting, but that doesn't matter. For the purposes of the law, the board is not "all-male". Anyone who disagrees can then be taken to court, for discrimination.
That is how I would play this. Just good fun.
FredW
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story...
It's a good idea to search before posting, especially when the story happens to be news of the second freshness.