War on Women

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 15950
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:30 pm

It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:37 pm

"A day after a cartoon in an Australian newspaper has come under fire for being ‘racist’ and ‘repugnant’ towards American tennis player Serena Williams, the newspaper defiantly republished the controversial cartoon on its front-page Wednesday, slapping aside “politically correct” accusations. Williams’ meltdown in the US Open final has gathered storm and is the subject of the cartoon. However, many have slammed it for being distasteful and politically incorrect."

Image

Had she been white, would her epic meltdown have mattered?
Oh, how I long for the days of John McEnroe and Billie Jean King; when the term 'thin-skinned' was practically unheard of...
wait, I don't like tennis!
Comments

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:44 pm

What with transgenderism, same-sex marriage, and transvestism, they can't decide what the legal definition of "Women" is.
Only a Democrat knows for sure....(maybe)

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 15950
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Vrede too » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:15 pm

Am I a bad person for thinking this is funny? Only in America do we have such extremes.

Here’s the Sexy “Handmaid’s Tale” Halloween Costume Sparking So Much Backlash

Image

Anyhow:

Image
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 15950
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Vrede too » Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:02 am

We've all heard the reasons that women (and men) don't report sexual assault: fear of retribution, shame, fear of losing a job, survivors aren't treated with dignity, did report but the police did nothing, not being believed even by parents, being victimized all over again by the system, etc. and these women echo those reasons. However, there's one that I haven't heard before:
The Growing List of Celebrities Who Have Shared Their Own #WhyIDidntReport Stories

8/9: Pauley Perrette

Former NCIS actor Pauley Perrette shared the reason she didn't report being raped at the age of 15: She was afraid her dad would murder the perpetrator and go to jail, leaving her mom alone.
Pauley Perrette
‏Verified account @PauleyP

So #WhyIDidntReport I was 15. Raped by a drunk football player at a high school party. I was SURE my dad would shoot him if he knew and then my mom would be alone. I stayed in my room for days and cried to my cat. Didn't tell dad until like 20 years later after my rapist died.
Pauley Perrette
‏Verified account @PauleyP

BTW, My Dad confirmed decades later, that I was right, he would have shot my rapist that night, if he had known. In a weird way, I saved my parent's life. But my writing and speaking about it later saved mine.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:20 pm

"My Civic Duty" is suddenly the trend of the year

"You know, it’s my civic duty.’ It was a humanity thing. It was admirable. It was emotional."
Andrea Constand

Andrea Constand to Ms. Ford: "Stick with me kid, I'll teach ya anything you want to know"

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:28 pm

Can this legally be enforced? WTF are these people thinking?

California becomes first state to require women on corporate boards

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9875
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: War on Women

Unread post by O Really » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:58 pm

Here's what the bill's authors were thinking:

"More women directors serving on boards of directors of publicly held corporations will boost the California economy, improve opportunities for women in the workplace, and protect California taxpayers, shareholders, and retirees, including retired California state employees and teachers whose pensions are managed by CalPERS and CalSTRS," the bill's authors wrote.

It will certainly be challenged, and we'll see if it can be enforced. My guess - mostly, but not entirely.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 15950
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:38 pm

O Really wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:58 pm
Here's what the bill's authors were thinking:

"More women directors serving on boards of directors of publicly held corporations will boost the California economy, improve opportunities for women in the workplace, and protect California taxpayers, shareholders, and retirees, including retired California state employees and teachers whose pensions are managed by CalPERS and CalSTRS," the bill's authors wrote.

It will certainly be challenged, and we'll see if it can be enforced. My guess - mostly, but not entirely.
I don't know enough of the details or the legal arguments, but it's often the case that it's easier to challenge proactive corrective measures than it is the more insidious but undeniable discrimination that the corrective measures address.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:50 am

Vrede too wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:38 pm
O Really wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:58 pm
Here's what the bill's authors were thinking:

"More women directors serving on boards of directors of publicly held corporations will boost the California economy, improve opportunities for women in the workplace, and protect California taxpayers, shareholders, and retirees, including retired California state employees and teachers whose pensions are managed by CalPERS and CalSTRS," the bill's authors wrote.

It will certainly be challenged, and we'll see if it can be enforced. My guess - mostly, but not entirely.
I don't know enough of the details or the legal arguments, but it's often the case that it's easier to challenge proactive corrective measures than it is the more insidious but undeniable discrimination that the corrective measures address.
I've always said that if a woman can climb a utility pole, operate a bulldozer, run a government, or perform whatever job that a man has traditionally done, give her the job and pay her equally. I don't think a company should hire, or be required to hire, a man or woman just for the sake of having a man or woman in a gender dominated place of employment.

In the case of the California wingnut mandate; suppose a company cannot find a woman qualified to fill a board position? You think they'll still face heavy fines? I've heard of dumb laws, but....

I can't see how because a woman is serving on a board, her presence is going to boost an economy, improve opportunities for women, or (love this) "protect taxpayers, shareholders, and retirees". Somebody's bucking for re-election, maybe?

I hope it is challenged, and the wingnuts are laughed out of the courtroom. OTOH, there's always a chance ....

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9875
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: War on Women

Unread post by O Really » Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:17 am

Leo Lyons wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:50 am

In the case of the California wingnut mandate; suppose a company cannot find a woman qualified to fill a board position? You think they'll still face heavy fines? I've heard of dumb laws, but....

"Can't find qualified..." was one of the first and biggest excuses back in the day when companies with federal contracts started to really take affirmative action seriously. Sounds plausible on the surface, but here's what happens in real life: I was responsible for tail-twisting some construction contractors working on a big federal building project. I went over their numbers with them and listened to their stories of "good faith effort." After several weeks of helping them find additional sources for employment candidates - without noticeable success - it was time for the OFCCP investigator to show up. I knew they'd be in trouble, so I requested and received a postponement of the investigation. I told the contractor, "Guys, if the investigator shows up here and you don't have some progress to show on these numbers, they're going to shut you down." (they probably wouldn't have, but the contractor didn't know that). Surprise and gimmletegook wham bam allakazam - by the end of the week they had miraculously found sufficient females and minorities to be sufficiently close to their goals and a believable showing of "good faith effort." And as a sidenote, the females miraculously "found" were as successful on average as the white males they'd been hiring.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:19 pm

O Really wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:17 am
Leo Lyons wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:50 am

In the case of the California wingnut mandate; suppose a company cannot find a woman qualified to fill a board position? You think they'll still face heavy fines? I've heard of dumb laws, but....

the females miraculously "found" were as successful on average as the white males they'd been hiring.
I'm sure the females in your example weren't hired to be on a corporation board of directors?

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9875
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: War on Women

Unread post by O Really » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:41 pm

Leo Lyons wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:19 pm
O Really wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:17 am
Leo Lyons wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:50 am

In the case of the California wingnut mandate; suppose a company cannot find a woman qualified to fill a board position? You think they'll still face heavy fines? I've heard of dumb laws, but....

the females miraculously "found" were as successful on average as the white males they'd been hiring.
I'm sure the females in your example weren't hired to be on a corporation board of directors?
No, but "qualified" is relative. Most members of Boards of Directors are business executives, lawyers, investors - people who can provide either money, business, contacts, or all the above.

"In most cases, directors either, 1.) have a vested interest in the company, 2.) work in the upper management of the company (so-called "executive directors"), or 3.) are independent of the company but are known for their business abilities.

It isn't unusual for directors to be tied to major vendors to strengthen important relationships. For example, you'd expect to see a high-ranking employee of The Coca-Cola Company on the Board of Directors at McDonald's Corporation or visa versa given their mutually beneficial relationship.

The number of directors can vary substantially between companies. The Walt Disney Company, to provide one illustration, has sixteen directors, each of whom are elected at the same time for one-year terms. Tiffany & Company, on the other hand, has only eight directors on its board.

In the United States, at least fifty percent of the directors must meet the requirements of "independence", meaning they are not associated with or employed by the company. In theory, independent directors will not be subject to pressure, and therefore are more likely to act in the shareholders' interests when those interests run counter to those of entrenched management."

Being on a Board is usually a desirable thing to be on a board. Good compensation for hardly any real work. Bit of a status thing. Helpful to ones own networking and self-promotion. On the other hand, an individual board member has very little power, so even if a company picked somebody not so good, the potential damage would be negligible.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 15950
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Vrede too » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:59 pm

O Really wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:41 pm
... Good compensation for hardly any real work....
I thought everybody knew that, guess not.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9875
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: War on Women

Unread post by O Really » Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:21 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:59 pm
O Really wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:41 pm
... Good compensation for hardly any real work....
I thought everybody knew that, guess not.
One would think so.

The easiest thing for a corporation to do if compliance with the California becomes necessary is to elect their highest ranking female executive. If their highest ranking female executive is a payroll clerk, then maybe we might begin to see what the problem is.

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:43 am

Vrede too wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:59 pm
O Really wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:41 pm
... Good compensation for hardly any real work....
I thought everybody knew that, guess not.
If anyone should know, it would be you? :o :o

User avatar
Leo Lyons
Ensign
Posts: 1555
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:14 am

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Leo Lyons » Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:48 am

O Really wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:21 pm
The easiest thing for a corporation to do if compliance with the California becomes necessary is to elect their highest ranking female executive. If their highest ranking female executive is a payroll clerk, then maybe we might begin to see what the problem is.
Good points, but still, I can't see how, because a woman is serving on a board, her presence is going to boost an economy, improve opportunities for women, or (love this) "protect taxpayers, shareholders, and retirees".

I'm just wondering; if a board of directors consisted of all women, shouldn't they be required, under this law, to place men on their board?

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9875
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: War on Women

Unread post by O Really » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:56 pm

Leo Lyons wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:48 am

I'm just wondering; if a board of directors consisted of all women, shouldn't they be required, under this law, to place men on their board?
No, because they would have met the requirements to have at least one woman. Men, particularly white men, are in no danger of needing to boost their numbers on corporate boards.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 15950
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: War on Women

Unread post by Vrede too » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:13 pm

After a brief search I am unable to find an all-female BoD for a publicly traded company. If you find one, I will support your campaign to pass an 'at least one man' law in the state in which it's registered.

That reminds me, if pigs learn how to fly I will support a law making FAA regulations apply to them, and one making them wear diapers while airborne.
It really is time to stop being nice about stupidity.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 9875
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: War on Women

Unread post by O Really » Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:19 pm

Yeah, I could go along with that. Here's a good place to start looking, Leo...
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... Report.pdf

And here's a list of the ones with no females...
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... Report.pdf

When Leo finds one, you can start a petition to make them take on a male.

BTW, I think there were reports of pigs flying when the hurricane came through. Badaboom...sooooo bad.

Post Reply