Since 2008, Norwegian publicly traded companies have been required to have 40% women on their board of directors, or else be forcibly dissolved. Despite simply relying on brute force, this law has been praised as a paragon of equality; a great advancement for women that should be looked up to and imitated worldwide. If you believe in forcible equality of outcome, we are on the right track.
Or so it seemed. Now it turns out that roughly half the companies affected by the quota have changed their organization to avoid it. By opting no longer to be publicly listed, they can avoid having to appoint so many women to directorships. Finding qualified women is often problematic, it means you have to fire more highly qualified men, and in any case companies dislike this kind of government infringement on their autonomy. 31% of CEOs surveyed say they reorganized the company in order to circumvent the quota.
So not only has this attempt to coerce equality stirred up discontent and provided grist to the mill for MRAs who, as I do, advocate sexual coercion in response to feminism based on the feminists' own violent logic -- it has actually been counterproductive. In absolute numbers, because there are now fewer directorships to fill, representation of women in the boardrooms is now back nearly to the level of 2007, before the law went into effect, and declining.
Doubtless feminists will propose more stringent laws to close this loophole. Which will in turn stir up more hatred and more morally legitimate use of force for the advancement of equality for men as well. It is by now abundantly clear that equality is not achievable without violence (or at least threat of violence), and even rather drastic measures are largely ineffectual. As the use of coercion to promote women's equality escalates and becomes more accepted, the case for sexual coercion against women to even the score in that supremely important and unequal arena will inevitably be strengthened.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
You are of course right about the idiocy of this new feminst law. However, you still keep drifting towards justifying various degrees of coercion in order to rectify the deplorable status quo. This is wrong in so many ways it's hard to list them all. Two wrongs don't make a right. Most Norwegian women under 35 hate feminist politics, which is clearly visible in comment fields when normal women express their disgust with the feminist angles they are being fed. Are THEY your target? And if you're trying to punish them for being illoyal, what have you done to be loyal to them? Societies that condone rape of their own women as long as you get away with it like in Africa are almost without exception shitholes anyway. In fact it's one of the best deciding indicators of a shithole country.
All in all your current posts display a worrying lack of empathy. You seemed to imply rape wasn't a "real crime" in your last post. Even if you can't empathize with an actual assault rape victim using emotions, you can still read the statistics on increased suicide rates, self mutilation and major psychological problems that occur to a large number of victims in the wake of rape, right?
The point is it's the feminist politics that need to be targeted for systemic change, not the average Norwegian or Western woman. That will only backfire. Women are herd creatures who mainly follow whatever rules are given to them, that's the way they are, that's the way they should be, and that's part of the reason we love them. As for your personal change, I mean, it's a great intellectual excircise and all with the coercion stuff, but in the real world it sucks as a way to get laid. If you can't get a proper job in Norway in 2010 with tons of university education, that's where you need to start, because if you don't you have a problem in that department that needs to be fixed. If all else fails, with a decent job you can always import a bride or travel abroad to girls who will gladly gobble your white member for pocket change if you have a decent job. And who knows, maybe the chicks in Norway will even start to dig you once you stop being an eternal student and get a proper job and show your skills and intelligence. It's happened before to more hopeless guys.
All in all your current posts display a worrying lack of empathy. You seemed to imply rape wasn't a "real crime" in your last post.
I don't lack the ability to empathize with real rape victims, but most of what is prosecuted as "rape" these days is just women regretting sex, usually while drunk. Just to take a random example from the past week: Here is a trial against a man who tried to have sex with a drunk woman in a car. When he realized she didn't want it, he stopped because he was so considerate. But the law doesn't give a damn about his intentions because mens rea is abolished. All that matters is getting men convicted. And the latest escalation is all about increasing the mandatory minimum sentence in these mildest cases. The maximum penalty is not affected. Because the "rape" in this case happened before the law was changed, the prosecutor only asks for two and a half years in prison. If it had happened today, it would be three years minimum. Why on earth should I empathize with this? Why should anyone empathize more with a woman who regrets getting drunk and almost letting a man have his way with her than the man who didn't even intend to force her and didn't finish because he respected her wishes? The man was convicted. Which sends the following message to Norwegian men: You have to be an idiot to respect a woman's "no"; you get convicted for rape all the same, so might as well get your money's worth. Whether you actually rape a woman or not is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.
Here is a trial against a man who tried to have sex with a drunk woman in a car. When he realized she didn't want it, he stopped because he was so considerate.
He stopped, yes.
But he also started.
So he's not that considerate, is he?
Women will often say no in order to not feel like a slut, and then will have sex with the man willingly. They need plausable deniability, no matter how illogicial it is.
The case Eivind brings up shows how rape isn't as bad as what society says. Is it wrong forcing a woman to have sex against her will? Yes, but so is women using the state to steal from men for vaginamony and child support.
When women stop using the state to rape men, maybe I will give a shit about female rape victims.
You can't compare that to rape.
Why do so many men insist that it is only women that are responsible for continuing the human kind? What should the woman be the only one to pay for it? Both with her time, effort and money? While the man will just walk free. He doesn't have to bear or raise the child. And now hardly has to pay either.
Post a Comment