TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

EU strikes deal to impose 40% quota for women on boards of large companies by 2026

classicliberal1

August 11, 2022
72 upvotes
/r/MensRights

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/06/08/eu-strikes-deal-to-impose-40-per-cent-quota-for-women-on-boards-of-large-companies-by-2026

https://preview.redd.it/ho4t7pg1fzg91.png?width=590&format=png&auto=webp&s=db536e65bf327a7c9b4de22a22acd90bf146f940

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title EU strikes deal to impose 40% quota for women on boards of large companies by 2026
Author

classicliberal1

Upvotes 72
Comments 75
Date August 11, 2022 12:53 AM UTC
(3 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/wldxq6/eu_strikes_deal_to_impose_40_quota_for_women_on/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/eu-strikes-deal-to-impose-40-quota-for-women-on.1127797
https://theredarchive.com/post/1127797
Top posts by classicliberal1

Men still used as cannon fodder in wars

570 upvotes
September 26, 2022
/r/MensRights

Believe all women

246 upvotes
August 15, 2022
/r/PussyPassDenied

RE: Why n count matters in women and the marriage analogy

238 upvotes
August 7, 2021
/r/TheRedPill

r/The_Wall has been banned from Reddit

134 upvotes
June 10, 2020
/r/MGTOW

Believe all women

126 upvotes
August 16, 2022
/r/MensRights

Boy refuses to wrestle with girl in #MeToo era

99 upvotes
May 9, 2020
/r/MGTOW

Women aren't interesting

68 upvotes
September 1, 2020
/r/MGTOW

A plus side of covid-19

56 upvotes
August 29, 2020
/r/MGTOW

Comments

[–]NutsLikeMelons 45 points46 points47 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I notice there is no required target for black people or immigrants or over 55s or under 30s or the disabled.

Just women.

[–]denisc9918 24 points25 points26 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Or on jobs without ac..

[–]DiscoStu333 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

💀

[–]classicliberal1[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Weirdly the mods "deleted" this post. No reason given.

[–]63daddy 24 points25 points26 points 3 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

  1. More men need to claim they identify as women at the time of application. Later they can say they are gender fluid.

  2. I’m opposed to quotas, but if they are going to have them then same should apply to female dominated areas: 40% of nurses and teachers should by law be male.

[–]homendailha 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

40% of construction workers, soldiers, miners, farmers etc should also be women.

[–]63daddy 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Indeed. Good addition!

[–]mikesteane 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

And 40% of prisoners.

[–]denisc9918 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You mean equality of sentencing?

Begone with your blasphemy.. LOL

[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Equality of sentencing, and arrest, decision to charge and conviction. Taken together, it would probably result in similar levels of incarceration.

[–]denisc9918 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Mate, I agree totally.

but I suspect it has as big a chance of actually happening as the "40% of construction workers, soldiers, miners, farmers etc should also be women." you commented on.

Jobs with ac tho, they'll fight to the death for those...

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But even then ac is sexist.

[–]denisc9918 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd forgotten about that..lol

[–]smimton 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This will make men's jobs easier, as expectations will be lowered

[–]classicliberal1[S] 21 points22 points23 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Until the bad management causes the company to have to downsize. You know the women put on the board to meet this quota will also set similar quotas for any non-shit job.

As for me, I'm shorting EU companies. This is just going to decrease profitability.

[–]ReadingHunter 21 points22 points23 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is stupid. Those who are capable must be placed on board. I rather have a board of all men or all women or mixed if they are more capable. Quotas like this will allow undeserving people to take up important positions.

[–]Suspicious-Sleep5227 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely. As the saying goes, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

[–]denisc9918 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, so?

What's 'capability', or for that matter 'not stupid', got to do with feminism?

[–]DirtyPartyMan 18 points19 points20 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What a promotion.

Token Female Hire

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Haters gonna hate

[–]denisc9918 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

<shrug> stupid gonna stupid

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I would love to see this activism when it comes to women’s underrepresentation in construction, plumbing, repair work, etc. If there is no difference between men and women and the future is female, then surely they won’t mind working these very important jobs?

[–]skevyo 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your right we need to focus on getting women into coal mining, trash removal, roofing, & underwater welding. 40% need to be women it’s unfair otherwise.

[–]denisc9918 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the future is truly female they will HAVE TO do these jobs...

Oh wait, I just reread feminism 101.

Sorry guys it clearly states 'only jobs with ac'..

Get back in the fuckin mineshafts boys and stop ya bitchin.. LOL

[–]RandomRedditGuy322 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is there a 40% men requirement?

[–]denisc9918 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol, not yet. That's step 2.

[–]sar1562 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no! Affirmative action only hurts people by not giving them a real chance to earn their place.

[–]skevyo 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Communism in full effect

[–]no_noise_979 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

thats not communism

[–]shanish82 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s a step towards government controlling the job market. A step towards communism

[–]no_noise_979 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

a step in a 100 mile journey

[–]skevyo 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

One of the main selling points of communism is equality in regards to gender and opportunity.

[–]no_noise_979 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

since when, communism never was anything to do with gender

[–]skevyo 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The whole ideology of communism is based on equality. Do more research.

[–]no_noise_979 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

not in regards to gender

[–]skevyo 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Read this https://www.voanews.com/a/vietnam-gender-equality/4877652.html

[–]no_noise_979 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

that article seems to just be highlighting the differences between men and women in vietnam

yes they are making moves to try increase equality but that doesnt mean its explicitly because theyre communist/socialist

there are also capitalist countries that are trying to increase equality

[–]skevyo 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

U don’t understand my point they are slowly turning that capitalism into communism with laws like this. Even California had the 40% law on boards but it was revoked a couple months ago because it was unconstitutional. Funny thing is the Judge who revoked the law was a women.

[–]no_noise_979 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

i can understand the part about more control over job market means getting closer to communism but not about gender, i think thats just feminism shit

[–]Random_182f2565 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Any quota for garbage collectors?

[–]YesYesYawl 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There's no reason to believe men or women are any more or less capable of being on a board of a large company. So they shouldn't need to hire people that aren't qualified to get 40 percent women.

[–]denisc9918 -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Another 0 day troll account..

[–]killcat 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure because they will be able to find TONS of equally skilled, qualified and experienced women who just aren't being given a chance now.

[+]Halfcocked_Jack -14 points-13 points-12 points 3 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Oh, no! 40%? There won’t hardly be any positions left for men!

[–]denisc9918 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure many people have called you stupid before so I won't bother repeating it again.

Maybe you should have listened and read more. You could learn all sorts of stuff that would help you not say stupid things like this in first place..

[–]Halfcocked_Jack -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. People usually result to ad hominems straight off when they have nothing substantial to say, so you’re right.

[–]denisc9918 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"A basic example of an ad hominem argument is a person telling someone “you're stupid, so I don't care what you have to say”, in response to hearing them present a well-thought position."

So when did you "present a well-thought position"?

I can only see that stupid "Oh, no! 40%? There won’t hardly be any positions left for men!" comment.

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here’s the position: if 60% of the positions are for men, you should have no trouble getting one, presuming you’re good enough.

[–]denisc9918 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Huh? That's not even close to a "a well-thought position". Just more stupid.

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Explain why, please.

[–]SweetAccomplished542 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Ok Karen. They’re not pissed about women getting the job IF THEY EARNED IT. There pissed because women can’t seem to make the cut like they want them to so they’re resorting to affirmative action which is a totally pile of shit. Also men are natural born leaders while women are followers which makes a good female CEO rare.

[–]Halfcocked_Jack -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Huh. Funny how all this “Women aren’t good enough to make the cut on their own” stuff has been said every single time women have entered into a new field and yet I can’t think of a single field where the quality of work has gone down due to affirmative action laws.

Can you?

[–]denisc9918 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Point to one where "the quality of work" has improved?

“Women aren’t good enough to make the cut on their own”

How many successful large corporations have been built by women?

Only one company I've ever heard of. Owned and run by women. Didn't last 2 yrs and SHE had to close it down because SHE said it was unprofitable due to all the infighting and lack of work getting done.

You juvenile clowns are great with all the 'feelings' and 'theoretical' stuff but not so much when it comes to actually 'doing' something.

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It’s not my position that the quality of the work has improved, is it? My position is that I don’t think you can show me a profession where the quality of work has worsened due to affirmative action.

Can you?

Not talking about anecdotals here, because I know a whole SLEW of companies where the owners were all men and they went straight down the shitter in less than a year.

I am talking empirical evidence that a profession has gotten worse because affirmative action laws forced it to show some sort of representation of women in its ranks.

Just one.

[–]denisc9918 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s not my position that the quality of the work has improved, is it? My position is that I don’t think you can show me a profession where the quality of work has worsened due to affirmative action.

You're asking me to prove a negative. impossible. Prove a positive show one that's improved.. If women are so good then there should be lots of examples.

Not talking about anecdotals here, because I know a whole SLEW of companies where the owners were all men and they went straight down the shitter in less than a year.

Huh? That is probably only proof that more men start companies. Show me 'the slew' of successful companies that women started..

I am talking empirical evidence that a profession has gotten worse because affirmative action laws forced it to show some sort of representation of women in its ranks.

Again with the prove a negative bullshit.

You're obviously very young, immature and inexperienced. Pointless talking to you. Goodbye.

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look, if your argument is “women are unqualified for these jobs”, then you should be able to show a case where women’s entry into a field decreased the quality of work in that field.

That is not “proving a negative”. Very much the contrary.

For someone who’s started their argument by claiming I am stupid, it’s pretty ironic that you think I am asking you to prove a negative when I am asking you to show that something did indeed occur. It’s almost as if you think “negative” in this case means “negative effect”… which would be damned stupid.

[–]SweetAccomplished542 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The Military, and pretty much any contractor who is hired by the government who falls under a certain criteria. I.e. jobs with air conditioning and some kind of bull shit status symbol without any real value to society. Granted I talk shit but if I had a company and needed a CEO and Codie Sanches applied I wouldn’t even accept any more applications. I would hire her on the spot. But that’s because she’s an actual bad ass and not just another whiny ass can’t do shit reminds me of a child small stupid bimbo with to much makeup gets in the way and can’t figure out why nobody respects her. They hire these idiots and they where their hard hats so it won’t mess up there hair and wants to tell someone who has been doing the job for years what to do when they’ve never done the job. A good CEO starts at the bottom and works his/her way to the top. It’s not because they have a pussy. If you read all the way to here thank you and I hope you have good luck 🍀

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How has the military decreased in its efficiency because of the incorporation of women?

Let’s start there.

I find this particularly interesting given the number of times I hear complaints that the draft discriminates against men (which is something I believe).

[–]Algoresball 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

What if people get the jobs that they earn regardless of gender?

[–]ThisGuyCrohns 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The men will get fired cause they need more women, that’s what will happen

[–]the-lone-squid 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, they will add extra seats and hire women to sit in them but they won’t be required to do anything

[–]Algoresball 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If that were true than women wouldn’t need to government to force companies to hire them

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

If that were the case then about fifty percent of almost all positions would be men and women, wouldn’t it?

But somehow, that’s not the case.

[–]denisc9918 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't be silly. It's because not enough women either really want or are capable of doing these jobs.

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Riiiiiiight. So THAT’S why my aunt couldn’t get into law school without affirmative action. Because she wasn’t capable of doing the job. That’s what you are saying?

Funny. Because once affirmative action occurred in universities, all of a sudden a lot of women were revealed as being capable of being engineers, doctors, lawyers, and a whole slew of other things where they “just weren’t good enough” before. And those women turned out to be as good as the men.

How do you explain that?

[–]denisc9918 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So THAT’S why my aunt

One person isn't 'proof' of anything.

Funny. Because once affirmative action occurred in universities, all of a sudden a lot of women were revealed as being capable of being engineers, doctors, lawyers, and a whole slew of other things where they “just weren’t good enough” before.

<sigh> "affirmative action" lowered the entry requirements. It doesn't say get the best available of 'ALL the applicants' it says get the best available out of 'that group' of applicants based on gender/colour/religion etc.

And those women turned out to be as good as the men.

That's a 'feelings' and 'I hope' statement and you have not even anecdotal evidence to back that up.

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One person? Do you even read history, bro?

[–]Algoresball 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Because men are told from a young age that their value as a person is based on what they earn so men sacrifice more to be high earners. Women aren’t told that so they don’t typically put themselves though the same things that men do. It’s the same reason why all the low paying easy college majors are female dominated while the competitive high paying majors are male dominated

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Huh. That simple, is it? No history at all of prejudice against women in those high paying fields? No history of massive increase of women in those fields once said prejudice became illegal…?

Is that seriously your argument?

By the way, law is a high-paying field, correct?

[–]Algoresball 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Yes if you tell only one group of people that their value and ability to be loved is based on their income that group will make more sacrifices for a higher income.

Is anyone forcing college girls to major in social work and gender studies instead of engineering and finance? No

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Most of the girls I know in university — speaking as a professor here — are in health and law. By the way, I have taught gender studies and in 30 years of teaching, I have never met someone who has “graduated in it”. I have met some folks who have taken women’s studies majors, typically as an adjunct to law, medicine or what have you.

You know what I love about this sub? It’s absolute lack of consistency. Just a few weeks ago, I was talking to some guys here who thought men were doomed because women “dominate” universities and their particular beefs were with women in the STEM and law fields.

Likewise, a recurring gripe on this sub is the fact that women aren’t subject to the draft.

But get in a discussion like this, and all of a sudden women in the armed forces is “woke” and women only major in non-competitive fields like English literature.

I think we may be dealing with Schroedinger’s Woman here: simultaneously dominating all professional fields and yet, at the same time, not competitive enough to choose a decently paying field of study.

An independent observer might be excused for thinking that a lot of guys here are going to be upset about women no matter what they do.

[–]Algoresball 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You taught gender studies and you can’t recognize that males have more pressure to provide than females? This is why gender studies is a joke

[–]Halfcocked_Jack 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Uhm…. Did I say I taught gender studies? I teach anthropology and one of the topics we occasionally touch upon is gender… but I don’t recall teaching gender studies.

As for men being under more pressure to provide… It’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both sexes get pressured to provide but, historically, only men’s work is understood as “work” and thus deserving of pay. The things women typically get pressured to do are not considered to be work, even though they are often as difficult as “men’s work”. Not being considered work, they tend not to get paid or, being paid, are underpaid.

So I don’t think men are any more pressured to “provide” than women are. They ARE pressured to have a higher salary in providing. This is true.

[–]Algoresball 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Men are pressured to have a higher salary (I’d use a stronger word than pressured since men who can’t provide are literally treated worse than animals ) therefor they make more sacrifices to have a high salary and are more likely to have a higher salary. And the solution is to give those high salary jobs to someone who hasn’t made the same sacrifices to get them?

[–]MiKEY_SANZ 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Insanity

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter