Judge Rules California Law Requiring Women On Corporate Boards Is Unconstitutional (cbsnews.com) 263
A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California's landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional. CBS News reports: Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday. The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.
The state defended the law as constitutional saying it was necessary to reverse a culture of discrimination that favored men and was put in place only after other measures failed. The state also said the law didn't create a quota because boards could add seats for female directors without stripping men of their positions. Although the law carried potential hefty penalties for failing to file an annual report or comply with the law, a chief in the secretary of state's office acknowledged during the trial that it was toothless.
The law required publicly held companies headquartered in California to have one member who identifies as a woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By January 2022, boards with five directors were required to have two women and boards with six or more members were required to have three women. The Women on Boards law, also known by its bill number, SB826, called for penalties ranging from $100,000 fines for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state's office to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members. Fewer than half the nearly 650 applicable corporations in the state reported last year that they had complied. More than half didn't file the required disclosure statement, according to the most recent report.
The state defended the law as constitutional saying it was necessary to reverse a culture of discrimination that favored men and was put in place only after other measures failed. The state also said the law didn't create a quota because boards could add seats for female directors without stripping men of their positions. Although the law carried potential hefty penalties for failing to file an annual report or comply with the law, a chief in the secretary of state's office acknowledged during the trial that it was toothless.
The law required publicly held companies headquartered in California to have one member who identifies as a woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By January 2022, boards with five directors were required to have two women and boards with six or more members were required to have three women. The Women on Boards law, also known by its bill number, SB826, called for penalties ranging from $100,000 fines for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state's office to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members. Fewer than half the nearly 650 applicable corporations in the state reported last year that they had complied. More than half didn't file the required disclosure statement, according to the most recent report.
No need to rub their noses in it (Score:3, Funny)
If women can't hack it in business, and need big, strong, kind men to help them, there is no need to publicize their helplessness.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but a sustainably competitive business does. Which is why the Trump organization will decline and fall. Ford, Rockefeller, Oppenheimer, Vanderbilt, Walton, Hearst - very few last past three generations. There may be a few trust fund babies, but then the line is extinct.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does Trump fit into this btw?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nepotism doesn't care about qualifications.
You are right; but using the wrong term.
"Nepotism" specifically refers to "favoring family-members". Like the business-owner employing only family-members to Upper Management; despite others being more qualified (the "boss's-son" effect).
This is more like "Affirmative Action-style" favoritism; but based on Gender rather than Race.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, all the feminazis opposed the outrageous nepotism that got Hillary her jobs.
Hilary Rodham certainly was born into privilege, and I certainly have my problems with her (remember Vince Foster!); but, like her husband, she is certainly a qualified and even occasionally brilliant attorney.
Re: No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Insightful)
If women can't hack it in business, and need big, strong, kind men to help them, there is no need to publicize their helplessness.
Hot takes like this don't help the reality of the situation: forcing diversity hires is neither good or moral, and it does no favors for anyone involved.
For instance, would you like to be a mandatory diversity hire on one of those boards? If there's a law demanding your position be filled by a subset of the total available candidates, do you think the other board members will take your input more seriously or less seriously? Do you think they'll feel some animosity toward you? Will they think you were fast tracked before you were actually ready due to the much smaller pool of candidates that match your required demographic?
Forcing diversity through the glass ceilings by throwing them upward is artificial and obvious, and if they're promoted before they're actually ready then they're just being set up for failure. After watching this sort of thing happen over my career, I'm still not convinced that this approach is actually helping the core issue.
Re:No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Insightful)
forcing diversity hires is neither good or moral, and it does no favors for anyone involved.
I mean, just look at our own Vice President Kamala Harris. Often, a forced diversity hire would also be qualified, but sometimes they fail so spectacularly that it is hard to look away.
if they're promoted before they're actually ready then they're just being set up for failure
It really reminds me of trying to remove math (or similar) prerequisites for university students. The diversity of student body increases but students who are not ready will eventually fail in the course.
Re:No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Interesting)
It really reminds me of trying to remove math (or similar) prerequisites for university students. The diversity of student body increases but students who are not ready will eventually fail in the course.
This is why funding education and social support systems is so critical. You can’t make up for a lifetime of not having the time or resources to get properly educated because of societal circumstance. A society where the population has less education affects everything down the line from crime rates to economic output. Yet again and again, public education is defunded because ultimately dumb people are easier to control and all it takes is a smug “fk you got mine” attitude. The reality is education isn’t a zero sum game, with more education everyone benefits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Throwing more money at education does not make education better. That is the Leftist way, however -- it's always more spending to fix things. Yes, some districts that service low income populations are lacking sufficient funding, but not all are. The issue is less about how much is spent, and more about creating a culture that values education. Kids need parents that expect them to excel. Popular culture needs to stop celebrating the class clown and laughing at the nerds. This isn't just impacting poo
Re:No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Informative)
Throwing more money at education does not make education better. That is the Leftist way
Perhaps you don’t live in the US, because you seem to lack knowledge of how schools are funded. It’s through property taxes, well off neighborhoods get good schools while poor ones get poor schools. This magnifies and perpetuates inequality that we all suffer for because it is simply inefficient. What we need are schools funded to minimum levels by federal government if the property taxes are insufficient. What we need is affordable daycare and after school educational or sports programs. Your idea that it’s just punishment for their sloth is exactly the smug fk you got mine attitude. The reality is it helps to raise up a part of society that is too burdened to be healthy for the whole country.
Statistics show that the typical private school spends much less per student than the typical public school and has better results.
Even if this were true, it does virtually nothing to address property taxes as the sole payer of education and thus does not address the root issues.
Add to this the Left's viewpoint on race which treats minorities as victims and it compounds.
This is a caricature of the actual position of addressing inequality brought upon by direct and indirect policy that at the end of the day impact groups differently. When your parents were forced to give up their house legally due to their race, those long term losses to family wealth persist even in the absence of any further issue. The US today has a plethora of policy when combined with economic growth ensures those with an income stream below a certain amount will forever fall behind while those above only fail upwards. It’s like air temperature, look at any individual gas molecule and it will be really high energy while others are low, but the average is so certain that it is a fundamental law of nature that can’t be beaten. The least that can be done is to fix those policies today.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I think making taxpayers shell out for people who want to be parents but also want the lifestyle afforded to working people is disingenuous. Children require sacrifice and it's the parents who should be sacrificing. Your lifestyle shouldn't be funded by everyone else.
Well I hope you're in favor of massive minimum wage hikes, because low wages are what puts so much pressure on these families. Often the parents are working their ass off and still don't have the money to hire tutors or the time to invest directly in the child. If the state shouldn't invest in the children directly, the businesses (via higher wages) should. There's no other source of funding I can think of.
Re: (Score:3)
Crack babies, if they survive infancy, will have completed withdrawal before school age. And the long term effects that had been predicted did not come to pass. Not that crack is such a large issue these days compared to your decades out of date mental model of the world. And one of the educational priorities is preventing malnourishment by providing school lunches at free or reduced prices. This costs money but pays back in economic output over their lifetimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Crack babies, if they survive infancy, will have completed withdrawal before school age. And the long term effects that had been predicted did not come to pass. Not that crack is such a large issue these days compared to your decades out of date mental model of the world. And one of the educational priorities is preventing malnourishment by providing school lunches at free or reduced prices. This costs money but pays back in economic output over their lifetimes.
Go easy on them ok? They still suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why funding education and social support systems is so critical. You can’t make up for a lifetime of not having the time or resources to get properly educated because of societal circumstance.
The solution is to change that circumstance, not to lower the entry requirements.
Re:No need to rub their noses in it (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly, I don't there there is a way to fund good culture. We oftentimes mistake educational achievement as being a function of educational funding, rather than a function of underlying culture. Without a culture change, throwing money at the problem only creates corruption, dependence, and waste.
With better culture, everyone benefits. But nobody wants to try to figure out ways to keep young black men from fathering children out of wedlock. And even if we did figure out ways, they may be too authoritarian to implement - the flip side of the coin of freedom is accountability, and we *give* people the chance to fail, as well as the chance to succeed.
Re:No need to rub their noses in it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Kammy issue is special. It is necessary that the Vice Prez be much worse than the Prez, otherwise people may kill the Prez to get the Vice promoted to Prez. Since Brandon is so terrible, it was hard to find a Vice that is significantly worse, so Kammy laughed her way to the rescue.
Didn't work out in Trump's case, though.
As dull as Pence appeared with that fly buzzing around his head, when it mattered, he proved himself to be far, far better than the Dullard In Chief.
. . .and I say that as someone who despises Mike Pence.
Re: No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No one is "mandating equal numbers". It's always been about addressing bias that keeps otherwise well-qualified people out.
The idea that there is some mythical "best person" is idiotic. Hell "best qualified" is often highly subjective. Just look at all the morons who think that zero experience in, and no understanding of, government is a point the "pro" column for any given candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at all the morons who think that zero experience in, and no understanding of, government is a point the "pro" column for any given candidate.
Not just no experience but also bragging about how they'll be terrible at their job if you vote them in.
Re: No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is "mandating equal numbers".
The story is about exactly that approach, although they technically tried to mandate "at least" and not "equal." And there are plenty of other examples of similar scenarios happening, the justification is always the same; that group X doesn't have equal representation and therefore mandates need to be made to adjust things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the overwhelming majority of nurses remain female, and the overwhelming majority of bricklayers remain men.
Yep. Where's the law requiring one in three bricklayers to be a woman? Where's the law requiring more men in childcare?
Women only seem to want to be on the board of directors. I wonder why that is?
Jordan Peterson has a lot to say on this matter.
Re: No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Interesting)
The things-versus-people research is pretty flawed. If you like hanging out with your buddies while they work on a car, the research says you prefer working with things. If you like spending your time alone painting, the research says you prefer working with people. Those are both dumb conclusions. There's prejudice baked into the research.
Speaking of prejudice... I can't speak to bricklayers, but there's definitely prejudice against men who want to become nurses. It's not just from other men, either, it's also from women who are nurses. Men who try to go into nursing are pushed out by the same kinds of social pressures that push women out of computer science. And even if you do make it past all the initial prejudice and get a job, men in nursing often get pushed into leadership roles they don't want, just like women who get into software development often get pushed into tracking and organizing roles they don't want. Saying that all this is "simple preference" is dumb. It's similar to the trick that support-the-system economists often use, where nobody ever takes a job because of fear or coercion and the whole economy is simply everyone happily expressing their ranked preferences. That's a dumb conclusion to come to and shows a massive lack of understanding of how humans work in groups.
And getting back to the main topic: What job involves working with people more than working on a board of directors? That's a job which is almost 100% about relationships and people. If the women-love-people-jobs theory is correct, you'd expect corporate boards to be completely dominated by women. But they aren't, because corporate boards aren't filled by either performance or preference. They're mostly filled by nepotism and mutual back-scratching.
Re: (Score:3)
> The things-versus-people research is pretty flawed.
Actually it's not. In fact, the self-selection tendencies of gender is amongst the most well-established aspects of gender choice available. The literature is astoundingly comprehensive. This issue is settled science.
You're just utterly ignorant.
Re:No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Informative)
Actual ability is no guarantee of anything.
I'm not arguing for this law particularly, just pointing out that what management pretends is a system of meritocracy really is not at all.
Re: No need to rub their noses in it (Score:5, Insightful)
Those were part of the argument, yes.
Also troubling was the stick versus the carrot. A better law would be incentive based.
They could have had nearly identical requirements and rates if they went with an optional incentive method rather than punishment. They could have created a state tax of the same value and then a tax exemption if they have a minimum of both genders on the board. While it has the same net effect, by making it an optional deduction and by equally targeting both genders (no more all-women boards either) it would likely have passed scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
The only question should be - what do investors, shareholders want, not what some government demands. If it is a private business and not a government company of some sort, then the shareholders are more than capable of using their own judgement how to run the place, it is their money at stake, not government's.
Investors that own the company should be the people making decisions who to hire. If governments intervene, then governments should be on the hook for any losses a company claims may result from losing control of their own private property.
That's a blanket argument against any kind of regulation over private companies.
I think this particular law is a bad idea, but the underlying idea that a company can be subject to a law that hurts the company but helps the greater community is easily justified.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this particular law is a bad idea, but the underlying idea that a company can be subject to a law that hurts the company but helps the greater community is easily justified
Seriously, what cognizable, compelling "Public Interest" is so compelling here?
I am truly pro "women-run-businesses"; but this is not only demeaning to women, it is nothing more than Unconstitutional "Outrageous Government Intervention" (look it up), and the female Judge was 100% correct in her analysis and legal interpretation of the infirmities of both the State's position, and of the Law itself!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, would you like to be a mandatory diversity hire on one of those boards?
I am not in the sort of position where I would refuse that kind of influence, and probably wealth, out of some notion of pride. It's not like the other people on the board have 'earned' their place there either, you get on a corporate board of directors by being rich. And it's not about input, it's about votes. It doesn't matter if they don't take me seriously, I'm not there to be popular.
There are some problems with affirmative action, but pride is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Right.
So now imagine they're forced put a woman in there because of some law or other. What do you think will happen? You think they'll welcome her and treat her as an equal?
Queue the libs (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting all hot and bothered by not being legally allowed to discriminate by sex.
Re:Queue the libs (Score:5, Informative)
"A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting."
Re:Queue the libs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Queue the libs (Score:4, Informative)
It is "cue" if you do not wish to sound illiterate. "Queue" makes no sense.
Re:Queue the libs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Queue the libs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If its not 'intended' than it is by definition neutral on the subject. What the 'thing' is exists for some other reason, and almost certainly a better more valid one than ensuring sex representation on the board of any single corporation.
Actual discrimination against people based on immutable characteristics is wrong. However neutral policies, that perhaps make a certain thing appealing to one group and not another should not be vilified. Really its basic economic specialization and it should be championed
He's right (Score:3)
Equality is best when it's not forced upon any of the equal parties.
Re: (Score:2)
This decision avoids a lot of problems for a completely different reason:
I've noticed that a lot of both political parties get bent out of shape when the other political party gains power and does basically the same thing. For example, Democrats eliminating the filibuster on federal judges and then being shocked and outraged when Republicans had a federal-judge-factory running under Trump and eliminated the filibuster on supreme court judges too while they were at it. (Not quite the great plan it seemed at
Re: (Score:2)
Your example is interesting because I think teachers unions would improve by having more conservatives. But that is just IMO of course.
The problem when you make bad laws, you will have your "enemies" use those laws too. That is a given. It's just a matter of time.
I'm not going to argue about quotas anymore. What seems obvious drawbacks to me is just not seen by those in favor. I've resigned myself to letting them try and see what happens. I don't think it will play out any other way anyhow, so why bother wa
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is justice also best without enforcement? Because to me, equality and justice are synonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
"Equality is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. Justice is a well armed sheep."
Humans are not wired to be fair (Score:2)
I've been in the work-place long enough to see merit is only half the game. On average people prefer to hire and work with people who they feel more comfortable with. Humans are social animals*, and thus "social comfort" plays a large part of their decision making. Ethnicity, religion, hobbies, etc. all factor in.
Thus, left to their own devices, dominate group(s) will hire and promote from the dominate group(s). Given 2 candidates with roughly comparable merit, the candidate who is seen producing the most "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: He's right (Score:2)
The law should have required at least one person of a different gender, rather than designate that gender. A board that is 100% women is not gender equality, if a board can not be 100% men.
A mixed board should be encouraged, but not mandated, since in certain industries finding a different gender is not always easy or realistic.
Redistribution pools (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, it would be much smarter to have 10% of corporate board salaries moved to a pool and redistributed amongst payers based on population ratios.
Women board members would receive 50% of that pool, even if they contribute 10%. The only way for men to get back all they paid would be to replace their fellows with more women.
Now do the same thing over ethics lines, just for shits and giggles.
testing (Score:5, Insightful)
Background info (Score:5, Insightful)
Some background from the land of science. Men and Women have different proclivities.
If you look at the disparity between men's salary and women's, the figure 87% is largely correct, but it's not because of sexism, it's due to different interests and abilities: Men are more likely to take an outdoor job. Men are more likely to take dangerous jobs. Men are more likely to move residence for a job. Men are more likely to ask for a raise (being: lower on the "agreeableness" scale). Men are more likely ahead in their careers a little because they don't take time off for childbirth.
Overall, there are about 20 differences in the interests between men and women, to account for the 13% difference in pay. It's not that women get paid less for the same job, it's because women tend to take different jobs.
Some of these can be compensated for; for example, women are not as aggressive as men in asking for pay raises. This could be compensated for by having women annual reviews every 9 months.
Some of these do not yield to any reasonable compensation; for example, few women want to crew an Alaskan crab boat. Few women want to be lumberjacks, or plumbers, or carpenters.
Men and women are different, and in countries that have better egalitarianism than America (the Nordic countries) the differences are *wider* than they are here.
Law firms have tremendous difficulty keeping women law partners. Any woman aggressive enough and good enough to make partner at a law firm will usually quit, and for good reason: partner is top of the heap, they want to downshift and enjoy life, they want to start a family, and their husband is probably making a lot of money already. All of that is *completely* rational and laudable, unlike menfolk who tend to be competitive and aggressive, and will sacrifice their home life in favor of their job to the end of their life.
There is nothing preventing women running companies, being on the boards of companies, starting companies, or owning companies. The difference in agreeableness might be a factor at the high end, but nothing prevents a group of women from getting together to start a company. And notable women do run companies: Ariana Huffington started Huffington Post, Oprah is a billionaire, Martha Stewart founded omnipedia, and Cathie Wood founded and runs Ark Invest. These are the ones I can immediately think of, there are a slew of others that are not as prominent.
It's pretty much a case of differences in the normal distribution. While *on average* women are a little higher in agreeableness than men, two bell curves that overlap in the middle have stark differences at the endpoints: if you look at the most aggressive 5% of the population, it will be almost all men. If you look at the most agreeable 5% of the population (health care, psychology), they're all women.
Should we force 50% of all coal miners to be women? How do we get 50% women plumbers? Or 50% chess grandmasters?
Should we mandate that half of all firefighters must be women? Would that benefit society?
Men and women are different. We need to get over that and recognize that forced equity is counter productive.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe women choose men who do this: It makes child-rearing more difficult but the division of labour still contributes much to the family.
Re: (Score:2)
All of that is *completely* rational and laudable, unlike menfolk who tend to be competitive and aggressive, and will sacrifice their home life in favor of their job to the end of their life.
There is nothing preventing women running companies, being on the boards of companies, starting companies, or owning companies. The difference in agreeableness might be a factor at the high end, but nothing prevents a group of women from getting together to start a company. And notable women do run companies: Ariana Huffington started Huffington Post, Oprah is a billionaire, Martha Stewart founded omnipedia, and Cathie Wood founded and runs Ark Invest. These are the ones I can immediately think of, there are a slew of others that are not as prominent.
The fact that a bunch of competitive and aggressive male managers have created the image of the ideal manager as a competitive and aggressive man is hardly surprising.
But be careful you don't conflate the qualities that help people acquire senior management positions with the qualities that make a good senior manager.
Re:Background info (Score:5, Insightful)
It is all very well citing evidence of differences between men and women, such as variations in ambition, competitiveness, assertiveness, and so on, but how do you know whether these "inherent" differences are the product of social conventions? For example, it might be prudent for a woman to avoid being assertive and independent, and instead depend on the support and protection of men, in which case she is unlikely to achieve a highly placed management position.
It is quite instructive to see how women have been portrayed in popular action films over the years. In the earlier films, a woman in danger will usually scream her head off at the slightest hint of danger, and generally be a bloody liability. That is not the case with characters in later films, such as Ellen Ripley (Alien) and Sarah Connor (Terminator). My point here is that people, both men and women, will tend to adopt the roles that they think are expected of them, and popular fiction tends to reflect these norms.
One interesting point of analysis is that men may be just as affected by gender stereotyping as women. Men are (were) expected to aggressive, competitive, and condescending towards women. That might not be their natural inclination, but it is what society expects of them. If they don't show the appropriate male behaviour, they might be some kind of deviant, and you know what right-minded people do to deviants.
My excursion into the portrayal of gender roles in popular films illustrates that society does change, sometimes quite quickly, without the coercion of law. There is no suggestion that Ripley got her job as Alien-slayer as a result of some bureaucrat making up a female quota. The notion is totally bizarre.
It is well worth reading "The Subjection Of Women", by John Stuart Mill. He was a 19th century philosopher, economist, and political reformer. His analysis is that in many fields, there is no inherent difference between the abilities of men and women. Most of the apparent differences are manufactured by social conventions, some of them quite oppressive. Mill's comments on abusive marriages are very modern. When he was writing, the idea of women having the right to vote was treated as a joke.
In the context of the present discussion, don't recall Mill ever suggesting anything like affirmative action. I think this would have clashed with his idea of Liberty. There is something morally dubious about using the law to coerce what you think is a just action. I hope we can agree that denying a woman a job just because she is a woman is an injustice, and the law should impose sanctions in such cases. However, it is a bridge too far to impose equality by quotas. This implies that a woman could get a job, just because she is a woman, which is morally just as bad as denying a woman a job, just because she is a woman.
Re: (Score:2)
"Assertive" is a term usually applied to men, "bossy" and "shrill" are the equivalents applied to women in many cases. Some guys really hate having a female boss too.
Re: (Score:2)
Some guys really hate having a female boss too.
My thesis is that this is learned behaviour. Blokes react against a female boss, because that is what blokes should do.
Re: (Score:2)
It is all very well citing evidence of differences between men and women, such as variations in ambition, competitiveness, assertiveness, and so on, but how do you know whether these "inherent" differences are the product of social conventions?
Science.
It is well known that aggressiveness and dominance increase when humans and other animals are given higher levels of steroids such as testosterone. Men naturally have ~10x as much testosterone as women. Whom do we think will act more competitively?
Why do men have these higher levels? Because for millions of years hominid females have preferentially mated with males who are ambitious, competitive, and assertive. Therefore modern human males are descended from those assertive males. Look at goril
Re: (Score:2)
Males have these characteristics not by "social conventions", but by female preference.
There is a long history of civilisation, which basically consists of domesticating humans. The idea is to overcome what might be called savage impulses with rational considerations. I don't think we should assume that human instincts are irresistible forces. There is no way that I can live as a hunter-gatherer in the city of Birmingham. It is remarkable how much animal behaviour can be modified by guided training, and some of those animals are humans.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Men are more likely to take an outdoor job. Men are more likely to take dangerous jobs. Men are more likely to move residence for a job. Men are more likely to ask for a raise (being: lower on the "agreeableness" scale). Men are more likely ahead in their careers a little because they don't take time off for childbirth.
You say that like it's inherent to the nature of men and women, but provide no evidence or argument to support that conclusion. In other words, you are begging the question.
There is some evidence that it's not true. In some societies women are the majority in what the West considers traditionally male jobs, such as engineering. As for working outdoors, in some parts of the world farming is a job primarily done by women. It's physically demanding, and there is some evidence that women are actually better at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And a very simple way to do that is to simply post the pay rate on the employment advertisement. Now all parties know the expected compensation. I don't mean ranges like 50-150k. I mean post real ranges with a 5-10k spread which is the realistic wiggle room most postings have.
Re:Background info (Score:4, Informative)
Men and women are different. We need to get over that and recognize that forced equity is counter productive.
But ... the most qualified Supreme Court pick ever told me that women don't even exist as a definable class. You need a biologist to tell them apart!
Re: (Score:2)
Some background from the land of science. Men and Women have different proclivities.
That's why most people want women on boards, they believe they have lesser proclivity for fucking people over.
Of course this is utterly false. Fucking people over is a learned behavior. Our society teaches that it works.
However, it may well teach men that lesson more, because men are encouraged to be a lot of negative things, or at least to be a lot of things that could be either positive or negative without consideration for which they are for a given person, given what else they have been trained to do.
Su
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, Barbara Cartland said politicians make lousy love-interests: There's nothing attractive about paperwork and endless negotiations, or working a 60-hour week, or spending most of the time hand-holding the many 'world owes me' types that knock on his door.
Re:Background info (Score:5, Interesting)
A strawman is when someone is attacking an argument that you aren't making. This isn't a straw-man situation.
It's a reasonable challenge: "If this is being done in the name of equality, why does it seem that society is trying to make people equal in profession X, but not in profession Y?"
The unstated -- and likely mutual understanding -- is that in positions that pay a lot or that wield a lot of power, there's an effort to establish equal outcomes, but in positions that pay less or do not have a lot of power, or for other reasons are unappealing to women, -- there is not a similar kind of effort to establish equal outcomes.
That doesn't sound very fair or equal. So that brings up the question, "Why is it that society is pushing for equality for women when there's something that women want, but un-named inequality for women when there's something that women don't want?" This point, unaddressed, on the surface at least makes it look like the argument in the name of "equality" (equality of outcome, even) is insincere, because if it truly were conducted in the name of equality (of outcome), then society would be seeking out equality in all places where men and women compete and have inequal outcomes.
So if you could address the challenge, which is very much not a straw man, it would be much appreciated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In more desirable jobs, one cannot make that assumption. However, even if you could, this argument doesn't hold water. Lets say that only 10% of elementary teachers are male. But then we notice that only 5% of elementary school principles are male. Although maybe men and women have different career preferences, there's no reason to b
You can pick any color, so long as it's black (Score:4, Informative)
"The law required [...] companies [...] to have one member who identifies as a woman."
John or Jane Doe who is unqualified for the job, we will pay you $50k a year to "sit on our board" so long as you say you identify as a woman. PS: You have no voting rights.
Problem solved.
At the end of the day, you can't force people to be nice. Assholes will continue to be assholes and good people will do the right thing. There are no quick fixes.
The first step in treating people equally is to hire people who are qualified for the job, regardless of their sexual or racial background.
Re: You can pick any color, so long as it's black (Score:2)
How can they ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop it, you might hurt the brains of the insensible.
Re: (Score:2)
> ...when they can't define what a woman is?
The intro actually defined it:
I suppose men (by birth) could simply say, "I'm a woman" to get the job, but that's not an actual problem so far.
The law is possibly written that way to also encourage transgender board members.
Note that discrimination can be based on a perceived group alone.
Re:How can they ... (Score:5, Funny)
I’m just imagining a candidate board member holding up a sign that says “Will identify as female for a board seat”, since that’s apparently all it takes according to the summary.
Another reason companies are leaving California (Score:5, Insightful)
My company was based in California and we changed our headquarters to Texas to avoid this and similar nonsense. We also pulled all of our manufacturing out of California because of high taxes on corporations.
California is "shooting itself in the foot" with inane laws like this and others.
Re: (Score:2)
hahaha you went to Texas to avoid this nonsense? Sounds like you just traded one bag of nonsense for another.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you run factories without a stable power grid? https://www.foxnews.com/us/tex... [foxnews.com]
This is not an accident (Score:5, Insightful)
The Legislature new it was unconstitutional. But it gave them an excuse not to spend time on critical issues that will require unpopular solutions. Crime, water shortages, power outages, mental health, homelessness, housing shortages, high taxes and regulations driving out business. Solving those may endanger their chances at reelection. Can't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
California power outages are largely driven by fires as opposed to mismanagement (although that wasn't the case during the initial deregulation). Crime, mental health, addition, and homelessness all tend to go together
There is way too much money (Score:2)
behind those on corporate boards. You tell them what to do, and you'll get shot down.
How is a woman defined in law? (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't demand that courts maintain a 50/50 split for men and women on corporate boards when we have members of the highest court in the nation unable, or unwilling, to define what is means to be a woman.
I recall similar demands for "gender diversity" on corporate boards, and it may have even been this same California law that was the subject of debate. Assume the board consists of six men, all married to women, with biological children so there is no doubt on what kind of genitalia the members of the board have, or that of their spouse. We could even go so far as to have all the members of the board go through genetic testing to show that they are biologically male, their wives are biologically female, and the children of the board members had were produced in the usual way with genes confirming who were the biological parents. We could do all of that then half the board could show up, dressed as they normally would, but wearing a little pin on their lapel that reads "She/Her" and be in compliance with the law.
Words mean things. If we can't agree on what those words mean then we can't communicate. This nonsense that "gender" is distinct from "sex" is linguistic bullshit. It also means we can erase all protections in law we have for women. If anyone can claim to be a woman then there is no such thing as sports for women and girls. After a certain age we know that 99% of men can beat 99% of the women at 99% of the sports. This apparently includes sports where height, weight, and strength mean nothing. Motorsports will still be dominated by men because men have a tendency for greater reflexes, spatial recognition, aggression, and insight on how other men that are driving the other vehicles will react. I've heard complaints by some drivers that women drivers do better because they weigh less, therefore the car has a 100 pound advantage on braking and acceleration. That may be the case. If so then the men will have to be that much better to keep up. I guess it is possible to change the rules so the cars are weighed to compensate for lighter drivers. I'm not sure that is fair since that removes an element of athleticism from the sport. Are we going to weigh down horses too so the heavier jockeys have an advantage?
If men and women are just roles we chose to play at a young age then why the demand to maintain separate sport teams, separate locker rooms and bathrooms, or so many other separations? These people trying to fight for women to have all the benefits of men are destroying what it means to be a woman!
When Ukraine demanded that all men between the ages of 16 to 60 years stay in the borders in case of a call to arms we saw a "trans-man" get all worried about being conscripted. She felt a need to "disguise" herself as a woman to flee the nation. Okay, "dude", if you claim to be a man then it is your obligation to "man up" and fight for your nation. You want it both ways, the benefits of being a man but none of the obligations.
If we want "equality" between men and women then we need to be putting far more women in prison. Oh, wait, I guess we could just put "She/Her" lapel pins on the prisoners we have and move them to the prison for women. That's "fair", right? Only now we have women in prison being raped, and impregnated, by the other "women" prisoners.
This nonsense is getting people killed. That's on top of people's lives being ruined from men in contact sports with women, men not getting into jobs because a less qualified woman was chosen instead, and so on and so such.
If "man" and "woman" are just meaningless labels then why any demands on "equality"? Men and women reached "equality" the second everyone decided that there is nothing distinct between a man and a woman.
Re:How is a woman defined in law? (Score:5, Informative)
Are we going to weigh down horses too so the heavier jockeys have an advantage?
They already do this. They have done this for years and years. What do you think the "weigh in" is? The jockey, wearing all their gear, also carries the saddle that is to be used and is weighed on a scale. It they don't hit the race's weight, they add metal ingots into the saddle.
Re: How is a woman defined in law? (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like to read stuff on Slashdot because it is nerdy stuff in the widest sense. In my opinion, philosophy counts as nerdy stuff. It does not all have to be about electronic gear, software, and maybe law stuff related to those fields.
How would we know anyway? (Score:3)
Do we have enough biologists available to decide if they are women????
(reference: a Supreme Court justice)
Badly-worded law (Score:2)
A law that required at least N women and at least N men on a board with >= 2N members would have survived this challenge because it would be hard to say it violated the principle of equal protection.
It's completely unconstitutional (Score:2)
As much as I hate corporation (all businesses should be sole proprietorships/partnerships with FULL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY heaped on the owners for any wrongdoing by the company, this law is garbage
You only have to identify as a woman? (Score:2)
There's a great example of
Re:What is a woman anyway? (Score:5, Funny)
Democrats cannot never define what a woman is.
That may be true, but all the ones I've met at least speak in proper English
Re: (Score:2)
Close, but no cigar. The law couldn't violate the equal protection clause of the federal constitution because there isn't any such clause to violate. It did, however, violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure [wikipedia.org] the US Constitution lacks an Equal Protection Clause?
Re: (Score:2)
What California should have done is require female representation on boards of companies doing business with the state.
IANAL but I don't think that would work. Imagine if some state made a rule they only do business with companies which have a particular gender and race board members, do you think that would hold up in court? Equal protection will apply to such procurement rules, as it would to any company refusing to do business with anyone based on any legally protected characteristics.
Re: California legislators are idiots. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The idiocy of California legislators also created a state that practically has 1/4 of the entire American gdp. Sounds like you're the idiot for criticizing their target ideal even if there's a few missteps on the way)
The view that legislators are responsible for any value a state may have is the sort of myopia that leads to so much bad legislation.
Re: I can imagine (Score:2)