Thank you @Nobby_Stiles and @DukeTrout for both of you taking the time to respond and elaborate. I think I may understand this better now.
I also did a little reading-up about concern-trolling. I learned that it can sometimes be done inadvertently, by people with good intentions who are sincere about issues.
I had thought at first that Nobby’s view that (if I’m summing up correctly) advances like this will go first to privileged white women and maybe never to more-marginalized minorities, would have been well-received here. But now I see that while it may be a worthwhile idea to discuss, here it becomes concern-trolling because they inserted concerns about privilege into a discussion of gender. Thus potentially derailing the discussion of gender into a discussion of privilege.
It seems like there’s a big difference between an intention of Hey, we need to look at an elephant in the room that no one’s talking about here, compared to I’ll see if I can get these people off track for fun. But if it derails the discussion, then the effect can be nearly the same. Hence why mods split topics sometimes.
Thank you both of you, and everyone reading through this. I appreciate the opportunity to learn.
Great. That’s already an improvement, with a track record of supporting
at a much higher rate than the Rich old white dudes.
What you still haven’t addressed or appear to have considered is that;
…are still more likely to recruit, hire, and vote membership for other minorities. It’s incremental. Play the whole thing out to the next logical step, and the next.
What is absurd on the face of it is the assertion that this law, which increases diversity among corporate boards, will somehow decrease diversity. There is no opportunity cost, as you have postulated above. Boards are not going to bring in a woman instead of some other minority. If they only hire the privileged white woman you cite in your argument because of this law, they sure as hell weren’t going to hire your hypothetical super-minority, instead. They were going to bring in another rich white dude. As has been established time and time again, bringing one minority into an organization acts as a beachhead to the recruitment of other minorities. Your argument mirrors that which is often leveled against increasing the minimum wage: “don’t improve the lives of some, because then businesses will struggle and be forced to lay people off!” Except that’s not how it plays out. Raise the minimum wage and business thrive and hire more workers.Time and time again.
You’re describing a classist problem, not a gendered one. Obviously, if your parents couldn’t afford to send you to the best schools, or be there to tutor you when you needed homework help because they were working two (or three) jobs, and when you did excel, you were denied scholerships and bursaries because Privileged Bob really wanted their kid in the program instead and exerted influence, then you are at a disadvantage to moving up into the upper eschelons of corporations.
That, however, is not a gender issue. (Though, realize, women in these situations experience all of these things, but have to deal with additional discrimination around career choice and plain old misogyny).
If we have to start with correcting the male domination of corporations by allowing the currently-qualified-and-vetted “privileged woman” into boards first, so be it IMHO. That has nothing to do with helping the underprivileged get ahead, many of whom are minorities. Solving that problem solves the issue you are describing.
Willfully conflating these two independent issues is, as @DukeTrout stated, strikes me as either willful ignorance, creating strawmen, or, indeed, concern driving trollies.
They are are they? And you base that assertion on …
Anyway, how are women a minority? They might be disadvantaged, but they ain’t a minority. And you know what? This law doesn’t say “Disadvantaged women”. Its says “women”. And I’m sure its a good thing. Particularly for the rich well-educated daughters of rich old white men.
Here is my reasoning. These boards revealed their preferences already. That’s why there is a law proposed. The law doesn’t require that a black person goes on the board. It requires that a woman goes on board. So if they are given a short list choice between equally qualified candidates one of whom is a black man with a degree from Harvard Law and the daughter of a friend of the board the board is actually legally required to choose the latter. I can see how this is a win for women in general.
And you know what? I’m prepared to believe that’s a win for diversity in general. I really am.
What I am not prepared to believe is that that is a win for black people. Or the handicapped, or any minority group. Cos logically it cannot be.
Unless you are saying that rich old white men will be swayed by their rich white daughters to kick Chad off the board and give his job to some black guy.
Is that really what you see happening?
What you seem to be arguing is that with more women legislated in certain roles we will all be better off. Regardless of the backgrounds of those women. And you don’t like that I have my doubts about that?
So the daughters of rich, white, male board members are statistically in favor of universal health care and free childcare?
I don’t believe you and I don’t think you have data that says that.
But once again, its not that I begrudge the Meg Whitman’s of this world a leg up. Its biased against women. That much is true. But ain’t so biased against the daughters of rich old white men. Which is sort of obvious. Cos there ain’t a law requiring boards to hire black men or black ladies for that matter.
As for the minimum wage, can I just say that I am always and everywhere in favor of raising it. Cos minimum wage legislation helps poor working people, who need the help. Im not 100% sure thats a great analogy for you. Are you sure the women who benefit from this will always be those deserving of legislative help and those most discriminated against? Cos I aint.
If you want an analogy go to a country club, and tell me the ladies serving the food have the same interests as the ladies playing the golf.
That has nothing to do with helping the underprivileged get ahead, many of whom are minorities . Solving that problem solves the issue you are describing.
We arn’t talking about the underprivileged. We are talking about the principle of equal rights for all arn’t we? Isn’t that what this legislation is directed at achieving? If legislation is a legitimate approach to correcting this problem, i don’t understand why it isn’t more widely applied.
My issue is not with the goal but with the policy. I think I am debating in good faith. I just don’t see how eliminating sexism among the ruling classes will do anything for those who are not in the ruling classes. Perhaps that too nihilist a position for others but that’s what I think. I don’t believe corporate boards are essentially meritocratic, but a bit sexist. I think they are a self-selecting elite, which likes to do a bit of looting when it can. Those who wish to try this approach should feel free to try. Its not like I can stop them. One issue is that I can see how it will encourage a sense of legitimacy about said self-selecting elites. But hey ho.
“one-fourth of California’s publicly traded companies still do not have a single woman on their board, despite numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board are more profitable and productive.”
“With women comprising over half the population and making over 70% of purchasing decisions, their insight is critical to discussions and decisions that affect corporate culture, actions and profitability,” she told the outlet.
Actually you have a point. I am assuming a finite number of board seats. Why would that be so? If there were a finite number of seats then allocating one to any group would exclude another group. But there is no reason to assume that. My concern is only valid to the extent that there is a tendency to keep the number of board seats constant.
So by all means use legislation to correct problems of sexism among the ruling classes. It wont affect me cos I aint a member of the ruling classes. But as a first approximation I would guess this does nothing other than guarantee the daughters of CEOs board seats.
It occurs to me that it might be worth clarifying some of the thoughts behind my uneasiness with this law. The main one, is that many groups are disadvantaged in society. People can be unfairly disadvantaged in all sorts of ways. For those of us in these groups, there is something a little disconcerting in seeing another discriminated against group finding a remedy for its problem which doesnt address the general issue of irrational and unreasonable discriminatory behaviors. Behaviors which affect life chances and economic prosperity and everything important for pretty much any person.
The way to maximize the persistence of these inequalities is to address them in a piecemeal way. And to promise those who remains disadvantaged that it will be their turn next time. A bit like the hostages who don’t get to be released when some are exchanged. So to give an ironic example. Black men got the right to vote in 1870. Women in 1920. I’m not sure one was a very effective catalyst for the other.
I would prefer a way of eliminating unreasonable discrimination in a way which didn’t slowly dismantle the coalition of interest groups pushing for change. It makes me less, not more hopeful of more fundamental change.
As a woman of color, I am just fine with this legislation.
I’m tired of this new trend of white men invoking race and speaking on my behalf in order to criticize policies meant to correct gender inequality. Gender discrimination happens to all women. If didn’t, they would be on the boards already.
You can’t fix everything in one move. Waiting for a silver bullet stalls progress. Helping one group does not mean that we’ve stopped trying to change things. It means we’re making progress!
I respect your opinion. I’m not a woman of color. I am a man of color. I agree that gender discrimination happens to all women. I agree that if it didn’t there would be more women on boards already. I think that if this solution is good, then it can be more widely applied. Would you have a problem with that? I’m glad that my daughters might have more of a chance of reaching senior management. But frankly I am more concerned as to whether they will be fairly treated in the school system, or the university system. And how the police will treat them if they ever have to come into contact with them. Generally I dont like how the police treat me when I come into contact with them. I don’t really care so much about the struggles of white female MBAs who have reached middle to senior levels of management and are now struggling to make the final push to the C-suite. But thats ok. I can see they have good reason to be aggrieved and my priorities are bound to differ from other peoples.
I think there is something disconcerting about using legislation to help this group, when we baulk at using legislation to help all the women who cant get their kids into good schools, or sensible affordable child care for working women. Not because its fair that professional women are disadvantaged in the workplace, but rather because its so difficult to get any legislation that helps 99% of women or black women at all. And if this is all women get I would ask you, why that is? Who does it suit and why does it happen when other things do not?
Its true, you cant fix everything in one move. But I am always suspicious about how priorities are set and who is getting helped. And dear god its all been a long time coming. Are you sure that a policy which is likely to help the daughters of the elite is using the discrimination that all women suffer to get passed?
Who said anything about waiting for a silver bullet? Fine - lets help the lady MBAs. God knows there is no reason why they should be cheated. But don’t you forget about the single mothers and their kids while your busy celebrating. I’ve got no idea why they should be further down in the line - scratch that. I do have an idea why they are further down the pecking order. And I think thats what keeps me from celebrating as enthusiastically.
When you reform an unjust system in a piecemeal way, you might be keeping it alive a bit longer with much of the injustice intact.
Forgive me for disagreeing. I merely present my opinion. Its ok if you think I am wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Of course not, but I also understand that meaningful change happens when individual groups speak to their needs specifically, and combine efforts to get things done.
When women are seen and heard in more positions of power, then steps towards society seeing them as equal to men are being made. They will change the way the boards operate, and that’s a good thing.
Police violence is a huge problem. There is a lot of public political will from people of all backgrounds to change this, and I will continue to support any efforts I can.
Consider that even white MBAs in senior management are locked out of the top levels of power. They are just as qualified but kept out, and this happens to women at all levels, from the most privileged to the least.
I think the obvious answer is that this is a much easier change to make than something than initiatives that pay child care or education. Feminists of all races have been pushing for these things for some time. I’m still going to support any legislation that gets us closer to those goals.
Dude, I didn’t create this or have any part in passing it. But I will celebrate anything that addresses gender inequality. Doesn’t mean I’ll stop caring about everything else.
Above, you agreed that everything couldn’t be addressed at once. There is no fucking way to solve every single concern in one push. Social change is messy. First we make changes and then from our new perspective we will change again. I am hopeful and energized by all of the political will that is building up.
These are tough times. But small successes like this are proof that things can change. And that gets me excited.
Boatloads of data, on backing enhanced benefits for women and increasing board diversity, as well as documentation that boards have already built a workaround to exclude both women and POC while still claiming “diversity.”
If you’re not going to bother to read the background you requested, or even finish reading my post in reply (which covered what the last article was about, and why it was relevant to the discussion), then I think we’re done here.
Forgive me. I have been traveling. Now in my hotel room. HBR only allows one to read 3 free articles so i wondered which of the two unread you suggest i read. The second from last is the one that suggests these rules can actually result in perverse diversity reduction. But surely the disagreement was not on the benefits of diversity but on whether this approach to encouraging diversity was effective.
My concern is that trickle down social policy is not significantly different to trickle down economics on terms of effectiveness.
Not that i am particularly adverse to this particular policy. I just don’t have much interest in identity politics in general. Seems to much like divide and rule to me.
