The Women's March activists have a problem on their hands here. What with the leadership of the feminist movement being heavily influenced by left leaning (often secular or non-practicing) Jewish women, once the Women's March organizers went from being opposed to Zionism or pro Palestinian rights to outright anti-Semitism (and yes, there is a difference), that created a major rift. While the feminist movement relies on identity politics to further its aims, a rift like this puts a divide in their own rank & file. Another Women's March gathering in Northern California was recently canceled because the march would not have featured enough women of color. They didn't want the bad PR that would have come from having 99% upper middle class White women ranting and raving about how hard their lives are (trying to afford BMW lease payments
and $3500/month rent on $150K/yr), while Latinas and Black women in SoCal are struggling with crime and poverty (what some might call "
real problems"
)... so the march was canceled.
PC eats itself: California Women’s March canceled over fears it would be ‘overwhelmingly white’
California has created another feminist pickle. Gov. Jerry Brown just pushed a law that
requires public companies headquartered in CA to have a certain number of females (eventually has to be 50%) on their boards of directors by a certain date - 2020, I believe. Companies that aren't able to accomplish that will face fines for breaking the law. Apple, Google/Alphabet and I believe Facebook will all be affected, among many others. One problem is that members of a board are nominated and shareholders vote. So some mechanism will have to be put in place to rig or make null the vote, if things don't go to plan - which could lead to issues with the SEC over illegal governance. Another issue that has been brought up is how are transgender board members counted? Are they counted as males or females... or something else? :dunno: And finally, the feminists (including Jerry Brown) have complained that corporate boards are primarily made up of White males... which is true. But boards are even more racially problematic. The percentage of minorities on U.S. corporate boards is extremely low. So the (legitimate) point is being made by women of color (Black, Asian, Latinas, et al), if you go from having 10 White guys to 5 White guys and 5 White women, how exactly is that a diverse board. And if a racial component is added at some point, if a biracial transgender woman (let's say "she" is Asian and Black) makes it on the board, how many ticks of the PC box does that generate?
I tell ya what... the rules of Political Correctness, Identity Politics and Animal Farm "equality" can get mighty darn complicated once details pop to the surface after Big Brother gets involved. Seems to a dumbass like me that it would be much easier (and better) to work toward a society where there are more opportunities for all, equal treatment under the law for all and a realization that not everyone is going to agree with everyone else 100% of the time... and someone might (accidentally) hurt your feelings every now & again - so you get over it. Weak, fragile, delicate people need to grow thicker skin and stop wanting the government to wipe their asses from cradle to grave. Just my opinion.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming. Sorry for the TL/DR post. :wave: