In the United States, women hold 19.2 percent of board seats of companies listed in the Standard and Poors directory. In 2018 California became the first U.S. state to require companies based within its borders to put female directors on their boards. Companies with at least five directors would need to have two or three female directors, depending on the size of the board, according to the new law. Those that don’t would face financial penalties. In July 2022 a judge in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution, according to a copy of the verdict.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, board members should be the most qualified regardless of gender
@9FLTH7812mos12MO
If a woman is more qualified or more educated in matters that will benefit the company than a man then she should be allowed to be a board member and vice versa. All that matters is that the board is running the company in the best way possible.
@9FNW66MProgressive12mos12MO
Because there are qualified people of all races and genders so there should only be that policy in place if there is discrimination occurring on a large scale.
@9FTZBZ411mos11MO
If a man and a woman have the same qualifications for a position then it should be based in effectiveness or ingenuity or determination, race and gender should never be factors in achievement based positions. If the woman is qualified then she will earn the position, if she is not then the company is all the better for it as it will be under a more skilled and qualified leader who just so happens to be a man.
@9GKPQKQLibertarian11mos11MO
If women truly got paid less than men, corporations would hire more women to increase profit. Women are "paid less," because they aren't working as high paying job, they aren't working the same amount of hours, or they are capable to do the same type of jobs as men physically.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No
@9F758BWLibertarian1yr1Y
It may discriminate towards people who may be just as if not more qualified.
@9F8TH9312mos12MO
women represent 58.3% of the U.S. workforce, while men represent 41.7%. Working Asian women are more likely to work in management, professional, and other related executive positions than women of other races and ethnicity.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, and the government should do more to require diversity in the workplace
@9F5XWHK1yr1Y
People of color or people that say they are of different genders than male should not be viewed as a better higher than people that are white or male purely based off of their race or gender because that is immoral, racist, and sexist.
@9FG3DKVRepublican12mos12MO
The workplace can hire whoever they want and who best fits the job and if they decide that the people who best fit the position end up being all white men then that is who they should hire.
@9FLTH7812mos12MO
I don't think the government should "require" anything though I think they should heavily encourage diversity.
@9F8TH9312mos12MO
The issue with gender diversity or racial diversity is that it favors only the people who fit the quota and nothing else. They should hire the people who are the best in their field instead of being required to hire a person who cannot do their job correctly.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, but only for large international corporations
@9FNW66MProgressive12mos12MO
Women are more than capable of getting there without the requirement being there. If policy like that is put in place only for women it gives men and people who look down upon women an easy argument to diminish women's ability to get there.
@9FTZBZ411mos11MO
A persons gender should not be a factor in if they receive a position in a company. It should go to the most qualified person, if it happens to be a woman than that is great, but forced diversity rarely leads to success.
@Th3004144yrs4Y
Not necessarily required, but more diversity us needed
@8HJPJB74yrs4Y
Have people on the board that are qualified regardless of gender or race. Gender should not be a contributing factor
@9JW87V67mos7MO
Not required since board members should be the most qualified regardless of gender, but any board that entirely lacks female representation and has a history of lacking representation should be investigated for a possible gender bias
@5BHYRNZ4yrs4Y
Only men should be allowed as board members.
@NameIGuessLolSocialist 1wk1W
Someone actually thinks like this?! All genders and sexes are deserving of equal treatment. End of story.
Why? There's a difference between men and women. Businesses should have that choice.
@NameIGuessLolSocialist 1wk1W
And what diff
Because there is a broad consensus among scientists that there are no significant differences between male and female intelligence and qualification. What 'difference' do you speak of?
@Patriot-#1776Constitution6 days6D
In intelligence there is not, but generally speaking there are male virtues and male vices and female virtues and female vices (with exceptions). Fundamentally their nature is different, and they were wired for different roles within the contexts of the church, the family, and various other social institutions.
@8PCT9HB4yrs4Y
Where is the argument here? Studies have shown women and men being near identical in levels of intelligence, and women are able to accomplish just as much as men are. Don't try to "discuss" a topic you clearly haven't educated yourself on with zero back up argument or evidence.
Source: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women
@9T4CCMZ6 days6D
Would you rather have MrSmallBrain who lowers productivity by 40% or MsBigBrain who increases productivity by 40%. You can't assume a gender is less qualified than another?
@92RB63W2yrs2Y
Hire the most qualified candidates, but have blind interviews or blind applications. Remove any indication of biases such as name, race, gender. relevant experience and qualifications on a resume are all that should be required. When people say “hire the most qualified candidate” it’s a dog whistle that usually means, “don’t change the way applications and interviews are done because then it won’t inherently benefit the white male like me.”
@9S5YGKM4wks4W
This is such an awesome take. I love this idea.
@erikb94yrs4Y
No. Let them choose the gender mix (or lack thereof), let them reveal the degree of commitment to diversity, so that potential customers and clients can choose whether or not to do business with them accordingly.
@9SV9J3J2wks2W
It should not be required because only those most qualified should be chosen and some companies may not need women at all because it is a men's product or vice versa.
@9SXH6DP1wk1W
AI results:
: C-suite: While women make up 28% of the C-suite, men still make up 72%. Senior management: Worldwide, women hold 33.5% of senior management positions. S&P 100: Women make up 28% of executives in the top leadership teams of the S&P 100, while men make up 83% of the named executive officers. Revenue-generating roles: Women hold less than one-third of revenue-generating management roles, which can have a significant impact on a company's strategy and decision-making. CEO: In 2021, 41 women were CEOs of Fortune 500 companies
@9D5CCYX1yr1Y
board members should be the most qualified regardless of what their gender or sex is.
I completely understand where you're coming from - qualifications should indeed be paramount. However, the issue lies in the fact that women, despite being equally qualified, are often overlooked for board positions. For instance, a study by Harvard Business Review found that women are less likely to be considered for board positions, even when they have the same qualifications as men. This suggests that biases, even if unconscious, are at play. If requirements were put in place, it could correct this imbalance.
@54MDY264yrs4Y
Yes, in proportion to number of women employees.
@957BTS42yrs2Y
No, women should not be in the workplace
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
“women should not be in the workplace”
Not all women can/should be homemakers.
Not required, since board members should be the most qualified regardless of gender, but any company board with a history of lacking female representation should be investigated for a possible gender bias
@9L74FFC6mos6MO
Not required since members should be the most qualified regardless of gender, but it should be encouraged and any board that’s entirely devoid of female representation should be investigated for a possible gender bias
@9RNXDQ9Progressive2mos2MO
This increases tokenism and I would rather invest in approaches to identify and promote women with talent or potential
@9R6H2FTRepublican2mos2MO
No. Perhaps to be required to not turn anyone away or “take points off” anyone for being either male or female, sure. But requiring a business or organization to have to find women workers only results in embarassment for women everywhere as they watch female DEI-hired Secret Service agents ask “what do we do? where are we going?” and spend several minutes trying to holster their handgun. Imagine that level of embarassment in a leadership position. No thanks.
@9R33LXY2mos2MO
No, it should not be a requirement but actively refusing to appoint a woman to the board because she is a woman is illegal.
@8S3FDV63yrs3Y
abolish private property
@8X7SP8Q3yrs3Y
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong? There's no way there will be famine, or something like that... Definitely not. It's not as though one happens almost every time somebody tries something like this.
@95B6VWF2yrs2Y
No, but when picking who is going to be on the board, they should make all applications anonymous (no name, gender, race, ethnicity). This would ensure that everyone is picked purley from their qualifications.
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
“purley”
Purely
@8Q4WQDX4yrs4Y
No, Women Belong In The Kitchen
No, and women should be removed from the workplace
I hope for more women to be in the higher offices but may the best candiate win that job.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
@ISIDEWITH1 day1D
