Excerpt:
The French version of the glass ceiling has just been cracked open by parliamentary vote. With the backing of President Sarkozy’s administration, the National Assembly last night passed a bill that aims to force big companies to appoint women to 40 percent of their seats on the board.
[…]Norway introduced a 40 percent rule in 2002 when women accounted for only 6 per cent of board seats there. Spain has also just passed a similar law.
The measure will mean an upheaval because the boards of France’s top companies remain male bastions, along with those of southern Europe (see chart below). Women occupy just 10.5 percent of board seats in the 650 publicly quoted companies to which the new law will apply. Corporations will have six years to reach the 40 percent mark. After that, all board appointments will be voided if they do not maintain at least a 60-40 share between men and women.
Women today seem to prefer a pay check and government social programs over relationships with husbands and children. A relationship means that the other person may say or do things that hurt you, and that they may make demands on you to act morally or to think rationally or to take care of others. I have heard the demands of men and children described as “harassment” by women, and compared unfavorably with workplace relationships. For some reason, women have decided that the workplace is less “harassment” than the family.
Women may still marry for the spectacle of the wedding. They may still have babies to play with and show off. (But the man should change the diapers). But the willingness to accept the demands of relationships is gone. Today’s women think that life should be about their happiness all the time, and that no one should ever confront them with moral judgments and moral obligations. So a husband’s demands for a woman to spend less will be met with a unilateral divorce. And a child’s demands for attention will be met with day care.
Today’s women are just not interested in communication, relationships, commitments, and nurturing.
Related posts
- Less than half of 7 to 21 year old women think marriage precedes child-bearing
- Marriage under attack by the left in Australia and India
- How socialism undermines the traditional family in Sweden
- How feminism is opposed to chivalry, marriage and fathers
- What causes women to become single mothers, and how are children affected?
- Which family configuration is best for raising children?
- Why did 77% of young unmarried women vote for Obama in 2009?
- Jennifer Roback Morse evaluates the economics of no-fault divorce
- New study shows that children of working mothers live unhealthier lives
- New study explains the best way for young people to avoid sexual risks
- Obama praises non-traditional families on National Family Day
- Has the decline of chastity and courtship hurt young people?
- Canadian study suggests how parents can influence children’s sexual choices
- Twenty-one reasons why marriage matters
- The latest podcasts from Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse
- New Scientist article shows why fathers are necessary for children’s well-being
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Has there been any follow up to see how the other countries that have instituted similar policies have fared? My initial thought is they would have suffered if you had to settle for sub-par candidates just to make your quota…but then I realized it executives don’t always do a lot and the rest of the board/subordinates will just have to pick up the slack, hiding the deficiencies in this policy.
LikeLike
Have you noticed that men aren’t that interested in commitment either?
For the record, any law that compels any percentage of any demographic regardless of qualification is inherently wrong.
LikeLike
What??? Men not interested in commitment! I don’t believe it.
I’m very interested in commitment, I’m just concerned about all the ways that feminism has put up obstacles that get in the way of all my plans. Young, single women vote for bigger and bigger government to provide them with security and social programs to protect them from their own risky choices and risky behaviors. And this results in very high tax rates, which dissuade men from marrying and having lots of children.
How can I afford to pay for Christian schools for my children when I have to pay all this money for public schools that don’t even work – and they teach things that undermine my worldview?
For those men who like pre-marital sex (not me!), it probably wasn’t very sensible to give away sex for free, since this is one of the main reasons why men got married in the first place. But that’s feminism, and it’s what women wanted, or they would have complained about it, right?
Women today like feminism, and all the joy and happiness it’s brought them. Freedom from oppressive chivalry, freedom from oppressive marriage, freedom from oppressive courtship, freedom from oppressive romance, and freedom from oppressive babies. Am I mistaken? Of course not.
Be sure and check out my afternoon posts tomorrow where I will explain how women oppress men.
LikeLike
I’m a woman, and I don’t like feminism (not feminazism anyway).
Your argument, though, leaves out the other half of the equation: men. They are equally to blame for being passive, for accepting “free love” with open arms, and even for raising taxes.
LikeLike
Any woman who says feminazism cannot be bad. I also like feminism that empowers women to build useful skills – after all my two favorite women are Michele Bachmann and Jennifer Roback Morse! Women are much better when they’re strong and intelligent.
And I agree with you more: men are to blame for being passive, for accepting “free love” with open arms, and to a lesser degree, for raising taxes. How stupid can they be? Very, very stupid.
I hope you don’t mind me being a bit silly in my previous comment. I have to laugh, otherwise I would cry!
LikeLike