If I’m being honest, I don’t think this law is particularly import, because it’s a top down approach. All that seems to do is elevate the people who are already

If I’m being honest, I don’t think this law is particularly import, because it’s a top down approach. All that seems to do is elevate the people who are already successful in the existing framework. Women who work like men will get those seats. A bottom-up approach seems more valuable. Mandating equality in schools, hiring, etc. But we can’t have the discussion of what the best way to undo historical inequality, if we don’t agree that historical inequality happened, that it’s effects are still being felt today, and that the rate at which it’s being equalized is not enough - if the world is biased against you for your entire lifetime then it’s not useful to say “well it improved!” If life is a board game, you’re arguing for the rules of the game: that these rules are enough to ensure that it’s fair. What I’m saying is that if life is a board game, it’s one where the game doesn’t start from scratch when you’re born - the people who were playing before you arrived have a far bigger influence on how the game unfolds for you than the theoretical fairness of the rules. Which means if you’re born into the right identity, the rules protect you. If you’re born into the wrong identity, the rules keep the game stacked against you. And if you call that communism, well then I guess I’m a commie, but i really do think communism has a lot more to do with collective ownership of the means of production than mandating equal representation in positions of power