Saturday, March 13, 2010

Acolytes of constipation

In yet another bold move to save humanity from the evilness of this world such as fat, tobacco, breast implants at airports and non-matching socks our elitist friends of the Swedish political opposition has now solemnly declared that they will impose a law that will force companies to have a equal gender mix.

Apparently the lack of ovaries in boardrooms leads to global warming and to babies getting devoured by lions or something of the sort.

I’ve never even understood the quotas madness. There are simply not any reason for it, none. Rationally and logically speaking the best people should run a company or a government, no matter gender, color of the skin and so forth. We know this isn’t always the case since we hardly have any capitalism hence very little competition, but ideally.

However, the person or persons owning a corporation is also in their full right to decide who they want running things. If this means flat-chested ugly women in sandals or hairy men in high heels isn’t anyone’s business other than the owners. They can hire feces-throwing apes to make financial decision is they want, and looking around at this world’s central banks, this is already being done.

In order to actually follow through on such a law it hast to come with some sort of penalty for not obeying. I haven’t checked the different solution to what’s being suggested, and frankly I don’t care, anything that involves the almighty power of the stat to force people to do something is inherently immoral. We’re probably not talking jail time, at least not at first, but if for some reason privately own business don’t comply prison will sooner or later be a fact.

Whatever the penalty the law will be imposed from the barrel of a gun - guns are always behind any law. The lefties are going to force people to comply to yet another virtuous control function. That is what this is about you know. Has nothing to do with rationality or that they like women, it’s about making good use of cohesion and force the public into obedience. Obey or else…

And of course anyone opposing this will be a manschauvinist pig, a rapist and probably a smoker, because we all know how evil smokers are.

This combination of threats and name-calling is very effective. If you don’t comply you get punished and called any number of horrific things. If you are a good little citizen however you don’t need to worry about armed thugs taking your company and you may even end up in the news as a good example of corporate collaboration.

This is how they rule, with fear and coercion.

Another consequence of such a law is of course more resentment in society. Just as when we use quota to force companies and public entities to hire immigrants, refugees or a decent number of black people, the result in this case will be that we get a lot of people pissed off.

It can be because they feel their entitled seat have been stolen away, or that females/black/Jews/Muslims/immigrants don’t need to do as much and work as hard to get somewhere. This in turn might lower production or the willingness to work. If you get a seat no matter what you do, why even try?

Sometimes it seems that all any such oppressed, poor, underprivileged, minority group need to do is to run to the government and cry a little and presto, they get a seat in the boardroom.

In all fairness there are also examples of the hateful racist pigs the lefties want us to think everyone is, but those are actually a rare bread. Contrary to what we’re taught racists and pure idiots that hates women isn’t behind every corner and they don’t crawl up from every puddle.

There is also another reason why quotas generally are a very bad idea. This is something we shouldn’t speak about and anyone doing so is malevolent to the core. But in reality there are actually biological differences between sexes... Oh, I can hear the roaring sound of the never-shaved feminists right now…

It is however true.

Men are better suited for physical labor because we have more and generally stronger muscles. I would also argue that females probably are better suited for the boardroom intrigues and flexible decisions making then men are.

Sometimes this biological difference matter, sometimes it don’t, but you can bet your life on that once they start to impose quotas on a larger scale it’s just a matter of time before the fire department, the police and the army should be 50/50.
I wonder how they are going to solve the lack of men within the school and pre-school areas. Well, all men are pedophiles and rapists so those jobs will probably be the exceptions.

But maybe the most serious consequence is the lack of consistency.

I mean what kind of women and how many should we have in the boardroom? Is it enough to have one Muslim refugee of a single woman with one child? Does a black woman count twice? Both woman and black. Is being Chinese as serious as being black? How about gay people? Transvestites? If we have an immigrated black single lesbian Muslim woman with a child to support sitting in a wheelchair who like to dress like a man that has a bunch of serious illnesses, how do we count her? Only once? And if we cannot contribute such an individual with several of the requirements, isn’t it necessary to address the lack of such attributes?

Is gender the only attribute that matters? No? So what more? Race? Color? Age? Penis size?

And how big company are we talking about? Does the company need x-number of employees to end up under this law? To be consistent it should apply everyone, right? If so, it can be fun time for small business.

If we draw this further along we reach the conclusion that each board should consist of 9.4 million Swedes. How else could all citizens be represented in a fair and equal way?

If we are to be consistent, this is where we end up.

And finally we have the cost. Recruitment cost money, learning processes cost money, replace males with women costs money, and it can even be so bad that if females get seats by political decision they might lower productivity. It can go the other way too of course, but what is most likely when you get politically appointed personnel and compared them with employees whose merit got them there?

And the cost of having yet another area of our lives controlled by government shouldn’t be underestimated.

1 comment:

  1. Utter madness. Norway did something similar a few years back. The French currently have a 50% quota on the table (an initiative of Sarkozy's party).

    The UK equality act will in essence require as much in order to be safe from lawsuit. If not there will no doubt be an EU wide push.

    These sorts of initiatives are coming thick and fast across the entire western world just at the time our economies are all collapsing under the existing monetary, fiscal and economic disasters.

    The "right"-of centre parties of the Western World no longer have the stomach for this fight. In part because they are now all socially liberal and don't accept any differences between men and women.

    I think that this could be a bridge too far for even the Swedes though. One of the reasons that the Swedish model works is that the quid pro quo for all the existing gender equality and social safety net is that the men are quietly allowed to get on with business and the production of real wealth to pay for it all. Tamper with that and things risk falling apart.