Feminism goes insane in Norway

[ScottSA]

After giving Gore the Nobel prize for lying a lot, Norway is now going to slaughter its own business community in a last spasm of retribution at "patriarchy" from the dying credo of haginism.

Companies organized as "ASA" corporations are required to meet a state-mandated quota that calls for 40 percent of their directors to be women.

Link

Edited October 15, 2007 by ScottSA

[M.Dancer]

After giving Gore the Nobel prize for lying a lot, Norway is now going to slaughter its own business community in a last spasm of retribution at "patriarchy" from the dying credo of haginism.

Companies organized as "ASA" corporations are required to meet a state-mandated quota that calls for 40 percent of their directors to be women.

Link

That is certainly regressive. Boards should be made up of stockholders and those who can advise on either the business or governance issues. It should be gender and racially blind.

[kengs333]

Feminism is inherently insane.

[Drea]

how so Kengs333?

What is "insane" about feminism on the whole? In general how has feminism affected your life? Are you less of a man than your grandfather was? Is your wife/gfriend/sister less of a woman than their grandmothers?

Is life better or worse for women in 2007 than it was in 1900?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[kengs333]

how so Kengs333?

What is "insane" about feminism on the whole?

Where to begin...

In general how has feminism affected your life?

In a negative manner.

Are you less of a man than your grandfather was?

Yes.

Is your wife/gfriend/sister less of a woman than their grandmothers?

Definitely yes.

Is life better or worse for women in 2007 than it was in 1900?

The standard of living for all people in the west has considerably increased due to science and technology. Many feminists view science and technology as the product of "patriarchy".

[August1991]

Companies organized as "ASA" corporations are required to meet a state-mandated quota that calls for 40 percent of their directors to be women.

Malaysia has such policies for Malays and Saudi Arabia also requires that only Saudis can own property.

To circumvent the problem, the solution is to have a "front" or "strawmen". True, this makes the cost of doing business higher but Norway has the money to waste it this way if it wants too. It should not go unnoticed that Malaysia, Saudi Arabia (and Norway) are all oil producers.

I suspect similar policies exist in Alberta where the provincial government gives favourable treatment to small, local, inefficient oil companies.

When you win the lottery (or become a rock star), you can afford to act like Ozzy Osbourne. Finding oil is like winning a lottery - it encourages wasteful nonsense.

Edited October 16, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

Malaysia has such policies for Malays and Saudi Arabia also requires that only Saudis can own property.

Those are policies aimed at keeping national resources under the control of nationals, and there's a good, if not entirely defensible, reason for it. There is nothing remotely redeeming about this gender-based nonsense. It will do nothing to further the cause of "gender equalization," even if that was a admirable aim, and it's not; all it will do is make a lucky couple of women rich for doing absolutely nothing.

[M.Dancer]

Malaysia has such policies for Malays and Saudi Arabia also requires that only Saudis can own property.

PEI and Cuba also have similar policies.......

[Peter F]

Those are policies aimed at keeping national resources under the control of nationals, and there's a good, if not entirely defensible, reason for it. There is nothing remotely redeeming about this gender-based nonsense. It will do nothing to further the cause of "gender equalization," even if that was a admirable aim, and it's not; all it will do is make a lucky couple of women rich for doing absolutely nothing.

If I was lucky and won a lottery I'd be filthy rich for doing absolutely nothing...matter of fact there are many filthy rich who got lucky and do absolutely nothing...matter of fact isnt that the entire point of our society? to luckily be filthy rich and never have to work again?

Norway and feminism. I lovem both.

[August1991]

Those are policies aimed at keeping national resources under the control of nationals, and there's a good, if not entirely defensible, reason for it. There is nothing remotely redeeming about this gender-based nonsense. It will do nothing to further the cause of "gender equalization," even if that was a admirable aim, and it's not; all it will do is make a lucky couple of women rich for doing absolutely nothing.

I disagree. The same argument is no doubt used to justify gender equity in boardrooms.

Underneath, such policies confuse symbol for reality. The appearance of women's (or nationals') names on official documents is confused with how affairs are conducted in the real world. IME, it is the naive or Leftists who typically advocate such policies.

PEI and Cuba also have similar policies.......

Cuba is hardly a model to follow. In the case of PEI, it applies to land and non-residents (they can't own more than five acres and shore frontage is restricted). (Any non-resident could circumvent this by engaging a resident as a front man.) The effect of the policy however is to make Islanders poorer.

[Peter F]

Companies organized as "ASA" corporations are required to meet a state-mandated quota that calls for 40 percent of their directors to be women.

and the complaint here seems to be that while corporations have no problem finding competent men, corporations will never be able to find enough competent women.

[myata]

Underneath, such policies confuse symbol for reality. The appearance of women's (or nationals') names on official documents is confused with how affairs are conducted in the real world. IME, it is the naive or Leftists who typically advocate such policies.

I agree with that, the problem is that the reality itself is a thing in a flux. E.g if 90% of CEO have "grown up" in an environment dominated by white male Yale graduates they'll probably tend to perpetrate it further down - unless given a strong incentive to change the trend. In a plain sense their view, conscious or otherwise, of a worthy candidate may include the factors (like, gender, colour, school) which in reality have little relation to the candidate's performance. Rather than wait for the natural process to take care of the outdated practices, the society may attempt to accelerate the change, there's nothing wrong with that.

I tend to agree though that blunt tools, like direct participation quotas, probably do more harm than good in the long run - by, as stated, confusing the perception of the affairs. Is there a better approach - would be good to hear the examples.

[Drea]

Where to begin...

In a negative manner.

Yes.

Definitely yes.

The standard of living for all people in the west has considerably increased due to science and technology. Many feminists view science and technology as the product of "patriarchy".

Your opinion does not constitute fact.

The fact is your life is better today because of feminism. Isn't it great to have a wife/partner that has the ability to share in the financial burden of the household?

The fact is your daughter's life is better because of feminism. Isn't it great that your daughter will have the opportunity to voice her political opinion in the form of a vote?

The fact is that the world is a better place because of feminism... there are very few feminists in Iran -- I wonder why....

Please provide a link wherein feminists view science and technology as products of the patriarchy... I love science and technology.

It is easy to see that you are angry with women. Oh well.

[margrace]

Yes there are some pretty angry men out there. For instance the ones who are upset because they have to support their wife and children, It is their money and they should have it all. Another for instance it the ones who cannot legally get their hands on their wives inherited money.

Another one is the fact that men used to be able to beat their wives with a stick but only as big as their little finger, thats a pretty awfull weapon, now they can't.

Like the men in Afghanistan they used to be able to throw their wives out of the house and let them starve. A woman could work beside her husband for 50 years and get thrown out with nothing.

Women are allowed to be bosses now, I have heard many complaints about that one and experienced that with a young fellow who was working for me. And on And on

Edited October 17, 2007 by margrace

[ScottSA]

Yes there are some pretty angry men out there. For instance the ones who are upset because they have to support their wife and children, It is their money and they should have it all. Another for instance it the ones who cannot legally get their hands on their wives inherited money.

Another one is the fact that men used to be able to beat their wives with a stick but only as big as their little finger, thats a pretty awfull weapon, now they can't.

Like the men in Afghanistan they used to be able to throw their wives out of the house and let them starve. A woman could work beside her husband for 50 years and get thrown out with nothing.

Women are allowed to be bosses now, I have heard many complaints about that one and experienced that with a young fellow who was working for me. And on And on

This is one of the most ridiculous and overblown diatribes ever to grace this board. Men beating their wives? Starving them? WTF? What does this have to do with dragging Norway's economy through the mud in the name of "gender equity?"

[M.Dancer]

Another one is the fact that men used to be able to beat their wives with a stick but only as big as their little finger, thats a pretty awfull weapon, now they can't.

That fact is a myth.

According to many attempts to research this history, the phrase "rule of thumb" predates by a couple of centuries the first known reference that connects it to a supposed law or custom about wife-beating.

A reference to this connection is found in 1881, in a book by Harriet H. Robinson: Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement. She says there, "By the English common law, her husband was her lord and master. He had the custody of her person, and of her minor children.

He could 'punish her with a stick no bigger than his thumb,' and she could not complain against him."

Most of her statement is undoubtedly true: married women had little recourse if a husband treated her or her children badly, including many acts of battery.

There was an 1868 case, State v. Rhodes, where a husband was found innocent because, the judge said, "the defendent had a right to whip his wife with a switch no larger than his thumb," and in another case in 1874, State v. Oliver, the judge cited the "old doctrine, that a husband had a right to whip his wife, provided he used a switch no longer than his thumb" but continued on that this was "not law in North Carolina. Indeed, the Courts have advanced from that barbarism...."

No one has yet found, though, any written reference to such a rule in English common law, and if you read Robinson's paragraph carefully, she only ascribes that "her husband was lord and master" to English common law. The rest can be read as examples. It sounds as though she's quoting something or somebody, but that reference hasn't been found. Perhaps it was just common knowledge of her time, and she assumed her readers would recognize it. Whether the rule about "a stick no bigger than his thumb" was a common saying of the time, or something she invented, we don't know, but it sounds like it probably was.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mythsofw...le_of_thumb.htm

[M.Dancer]

This is one of the most ridiculous and overblown diatribes ever to grace this board. Men beating their wives? Starving them? WTF? What does this have to do with dragging Norway's economy through the mud in the name of "gender equity?"

I think Marg is commenting on Keng's sweeping assertion that feminism is crazy.

[ScottSA]

I think Marg is commenting on Keng's sweeping assertion that feminism is crazy.

While 'feminism' is far too broad a topic to lambast under one heading, because feminism comes in many "schools" (and I quoterize the term for a good reason), many in direct opposition to others, it can certainly be lambasted under various different headings. The 60s liberal feminism, making the reasonable claim that men and women are morally equal didn't take long to reach ridiculous heights in claiming that women and men are exactly the same in all respects (unisex); a notion that still has its hangovers in lowered firefighting and police standards to accomodate women. And apparently in Norway, where the hangover is not only far worse, but much longer lasting. The later standpoint and postmodern feminisms are like opposition parties in Parliament...all sorts of crazy criticisms and pledges that women could do better if only they were in charge, but 0 need for proof...still plaguing mankind with demands that men become women, or at least feminized. The anarcho and Marxist feminists...well...it's almost embarrassing to women to talk about what they want; a switch from daddy warbucks to mama cradlestate, because women are all "victims," doncha know? Not exactly what the auld bra-burning battleaxes who started this mess had in mind, to be sure...

[kengs333]

Another one is the fact that men used to be able to beat their wives with a stick but only as big as their little finger, thats a pretty awfull weapon, now they can't.

This is actually a feminist myth. There is no evidence that such a law ever existed.

[Higgly]

Those are policies aimed at keeping national resources under the control of nationals, and there's a good, if not entirely defensible, reason for it.

So nationalization. Shall we put you in the "supports nationalization" column then, ScottSA?

[kengs333]

Your opinion does not constitute fact.

Almost all early feminist "scholarship" is unsourced opinion, yet it is now considered fact. That's how it works, though, doesn't it; if you make up a bunch of lies and repeat them often enough, people will begin to believe them without question. It's a tactic that the Nazis used effectively.

The fact is your life is better today because of feminism. Isn't it great to have a wife/partner that has the ability to share in the financial burden of the household?

I don't think so. Women entering the workforce just contributes to inflation, and where once a man can support a family, now it often takes two to do so.

The fact is your daughter's life is better because of feminism. Isn't it great that your daughter will have the opportunity to voice her political opinion in the form of a vote?

Feminism teaches women to be selfish and self-centered, it promotes lesbianism and is anti-Christian. So any woman who subscribes to feminist teachings is doing herself harm and having a negative influence on those around her, in particular men.

The fact is that the world is a better place because of feminism... there are very few feminists in Iran -- I wonder why....

The problem with Iran is not that there are "very few feminists".

Please provide a link wherein feminists view science and technology as products of the patriarchy... I love science and technology.

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/509-10/femini.html http://www.pamij.com/feminism.html http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/85spp.html

It is easy to see that you are angry with women. Oh well.

So why is it that whenever a man has issues with feminism, which is an ideology, they are "angry with women" in general? And how is wanting women to be better persons and expression of "anger"?

Edited October 17, 2007 by kengs333

[M.Dancer]

So nationalization. Shall we put you in the "supports nationalization" column then, ScottSA?

I think it's safe to put hig in the "Basic English, Challenged" column

[Drea]

Feminism teaches women to be selfish and self-centered, it promotes lesbianism and is anti-Christian. So any woman who subscribes to feminist teachings is doing herself harm and having a negative influence on those around her, in particular men.

This is pure drivel and you know it. Pffft. women entering the workforce drove up inflation? Got any links or anything to prove such an allegation?

Some people need to learn that not all women fit into the mold of "mother, housewife". Many many many of us are people first, women second. Many of us never had any desire to be wives or mothers. I never dreamed of having children, I dreamed of having a Corvette!

Yet you would have me with 6 or 7 kids (feminism brought in birth control) and I would be certainly miserable. This is a good thing? Being a miserable mother?

I shake my head at your misogynist attitude. I shake my head that it is still prevelant in 2007. Heck, women of my generation grew up KNOWING we were equal, thanks to the sane men and women who came before us and fought for us.

My husband is glad that he does not have to bear the financial burden alone. He is my partner, and I, his. We share everything pretty much equally.

How can this possibly be negative?

[sharkman]

Yes there are some pretty angry men out there. For instance the ones who are upset because they have to support their wife and children, It is their money and they should have it all. Another for instance it the ones who cannot legally get their hands on their wives inherited money.

Another one is the fact that men used to be able to beat their wives with a stick but only as big as their little finger, thats a pretty awfull weapon, now they can't.

Like the men in Afghanistan they used to be able to throw their wives out of the house and let them starve. A woman could work beside her husband for 50 years and get thrown out with nothing.

Women are allowed to be bosses now, I have heard many complaints about that one and experienced that with a young fellow who was working for me. And on And on

zzzzzzzz....

This topic reminds me of the disaster in Africa after the dictator seized most of the farms which had been run by highly effective farmers who happened to have the wrong skin colour, and gave the farms to nationals who happened to know little about farming. Hiring people because of their skin colour or sex instead of their skills will cost much in the end. Let Norway do this and suffer the results.

[Peter F]

Hiring people because of their skin colour or sex instead of their skills will cost much in the end. Let Norway do this and suffer the results.

Are you suggesting that women competent enough to sit on boards are few?