Slashdot Mirror
California May Become First State To Require Companies To Have Women On Their Boards (techcrunch.com)
Two female state senators from California are spearheading a bill to require companies to have women on their boards. "SB 826, which won Senate approval with only Democratic votes and has until the end of August to clear the Assembly, would require publicly held companies headquartered in California to have at least one woman on their boards of directors by end of next year," reports TechCrunch. "By 2021, companies with boards of five directors must have at least two women, and companies with six-member boards must have at least three women. Firms failing to comply would face a fine." From the report: "Gender diversity brings a variety of perspectives to the table that can help foster new and innovative ideas," said Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, who is sponsoring the bill with Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins of San Diego. "It's not only the right thing to do, it's good for a company's bottom line."
Yet critics of the bill say it violates the federal and state constitutions. Business associations say the rule would require companies to discriminate against men wanting to serve on boards, as well as conflict with corporate law that says the internal affairs of a corporation should be governed by the state law in which it is incorporated. This bill would apply to companies headquartered in California. [A] legislative analysis of the bill cautioned that it could get challenged on equal protection grounds, and that it would be difficult to defend, requiring the state to prove a compelling government interest in such a quota system for a private corporation.
Yet critics of the bill say it violates the federal and state constitutions. Business associations say the rule would require companies to discriminate against men wanting to serve on boards, as well as conflict with corporate law that says the internal affairs of a corporation should be governed by the state law in which it is incorporated. This bill would apply to companies headquartered in California. [A] legislative analysis of the bill cautioned that it could get challenged on equal protection grounds, and that it would be difficult to defend, requiring the state to prove a compelling government interest in such a quota system for a private corporation.
Only pussies. The identity politics hierarchy goes like this:
Pussies >= blacks > old people like Sanders
There's a lot of intentionally provocative/trollish bills california congress - which actually have weak effects, and are mostly pushing for industries to self-regulate, and are NOT actually expected to pass, but reach compromise.
If it isn't expected to pass, then why was the largest committee tally of "noes" only 2 votes and why did it pass the floor vote with 66% "yeas" of those who voted and 56% "yeas" if include the non-votes? Don't believe me? Then see for yourself.
That doesn't seem like something that has no chance of passing. It is has a chance at passing and as a result a chance of being profoundly damaging.
I'm all for states regulating companies that do business within them. I mean, I get that all of Silicon Valley decided to incorporate in Delaware, but they live in California. Let California regulate them.
You do realize that they can chose to not live in California, no? California already drove out a handful of aerospace companies because of their stupid laws. They wanted to regulate "rocket fuel" as a toxic substance. I don't know if they realized this or not but "rocket fuel" is no different than jet fuel, fuel oil, gasoline, or any other hydrocarbon fuel. There are already rules on this on the state and federal level. But it's "rocket fuel" now and so the state wanted all kinds of paperwork to burn "rocket fuel" in their state. Well, that just meant they lost a lot of future business in the space launch industry to Texas, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, etc.
I don't much care what the restriction is on a business, so long as a company can free themselves from a state restriction by moving out of the state then California will lose businesses. I believe that if California did not have such great weather that they'd have gone bankrupt a long time ago by now. There's only so much that beaches and sunshine can buy.
Maybe someone could argue that this rule serves some "greater good" but it won't. Here's why, can you define a "woman" for me? Seems simple enough, right? Well, there was a story going around the internet a week or a month ago on how a Canadian man got himself a discount on his car insurance by declaring himself a woman. He didn't take any hormones, he didn't undergo any surgery, he didn't change his name or his "pronouns". He simply wanted the lower insurance rates that women get and so found a physician willing to sign a form and got his sex changed on paper. So, legally speaking, he's a "woman".
I don't know if it's the same people that are trying to hold these two conflicting ideas at once, or two different sides of this debate trying to make conflicting points, but whatever this is it will end up eating itself in the nonsense. If gender is just a social construct then there is no man and there is no woman. Men cannot oppress women if this is a social construct because then women can gain the same "male privileges" by declaring themselves men. If gender is not just a social construct then they will have to admit that men and women are different, not that men are better, only different.
If men are different than women then there are things that men will excel in that women will not. Also, there will be things that women excel at that men will not. If men and women are different then this will be exposed in things like men being more prominent in being on corporate boards.
If this nonsense continues then we'll see board members leave as "Bruce" one day and only return the next in a dress and lipstick as "Cait". And who will dare to say this person is not a woman?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
WTH. No NSFW tag. At least you should give a little warning.
Off to wash my eyes out at the eye station.
It's about the intersectional thing now. A woman? Why not a black muslim woman? Or better yet someone who is transgender or gender fluid?
That's not what intersectionality is.
Intersectionality is an understanding of how, for example, being male brings certain issues and being Jewish brings certain issues and being both male and Jewish is a different experience to either of those things individually. In other words what works for white guys might not be the best of Jewish guys necessarily, and it's best not to define people by just one attribute like gender for that reason.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I imagine the thinking is that having a woman on the board will make corporations less likely to do evil shit like dumping poison in a lake.
You've not met many women, have you?
According to this it looks like the distribution of medical school graduates by gender appears to be pretty close to 50/50 at 47% female and 53% male for a whopping difference of 6%. Compare this with the distribution of nursing facility residents by gender where you have a 32% difference favoring females.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA