Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#121

Post by throwaway93832 »

paulsutter wrote: post #17
throwaway93832 wrote: post #8

This makes no sense. So a company that has a target market of men must have a woman on the board? So an all woman board will be legal? How female is female enough for them? Can someone just identify as a woman, or will there be a mandatory screening of what's between their legs (or what their DNA has)? I predict the outcome will just be companies will move headquarters to another state (already happening because of t…

Take a look at companies whose target customers are all women. Are you surprised to see a man on their board?

> Take a look at companies whose target customers are all women. Are you surprised to see a man on their board?

I actually agree with your point. I would mostly be surprised to see a man on their board. I also wouldnt expect legislation to require a man on their board.

However, the discussion also brings up the idea that a woman (and any other gender of person) could have expertise of value to that board despite their differing genderedness . The idea is like "You dont have to have cancer to be an oncologist" .

Still the idea of requiring it bothers me. I would have expected other forces to handle this situation instead of men w/ guns.

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#122

Post by throwaway93832 »

simcop2387 wrote: post #9
PopePompus wrote: post #5

Does this mean that all-female boards are also forbidden?

I haven't been able to find the law itself to read it (probably not looking the in the right places), but all the reporting on it says that they must have at least 1 (or 2 or 3 depending size of the board) female member. I'm not sure how that's going to play out in the long run if it's actually worded that way since I suspect it would run afoul of federal EEOC set of regulations/laws. It'll be interesting to see the…

I believe this is the law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#123

Post by NeedMoreTea »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #114
arcticbull wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forgot how America's man-only board driven companies are the only competitive ones in the world :P Thanks for reminding me?

It's a simple question. Are you able to answer it? A Danish state owned power company or some other local to EU, protected company, doesn't really have any effect on the world market, does it? It does not have anything to offer in terms of innovation or management skills.

Like BASF, Siemens, BMW, BP, HSBC, TATA etc are all backwater protected companies having no effect on the world market?

Seriously, it's half the G20 with either mandated quota requirements, or a requirement to document in the yearly report company progress toward diversity targets and justify progress - or lack of (model used by UK, Sweden and others).

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#124

Post by ddingus »

tuesdayrain wrote: post #106
ddingus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean it, as in get a statement from a psychologist, and are executing a meaningful transition plan, your chances are good.

It seems wrong to assume that all trans people have the intention of undergoing a transition. I imagine there's a significant amount of people who feel that they were born into the wrong body, but find the transition process uncomfortable for whatever reason and choose to remain the way they were born.

The law is intended to include women.

A woman is defined in CA law, and the answer I gave is derived from that definition.

Personally, I favor far more liberal gender role freedom, and I prefer it precisely for the reasons given here.

More liberal gender norms would allow for greater personal expression, and covers these cases better.

People simply saying they identify as female is difficult to discern from those willing to game a law to get what could be an attractive board position, or present as a compliant group without actually complying.

Not all trans people fully transition. I never implied they must, or do.

However, the State of CA does require a few things to get that "F" on a drivers license, and those things involve a status change and some material effort to present as female.

Finally, some do feel they are better off staying as they were born. No worries, but doing that does also mean they are not going to be seen as women in the current law either.

All OK. I truly do not care what people do. People need and work best when they are able to be themselves. I much prefer meeting and interacting with the real person anyway.

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#125

Post by ddingus »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #76
ddingus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean it, as in get a statement from a psychologist, and are executing a meaningful transition plan, your chances are good.

And what if you're gender fluid?

It will be super interesting to see that play out in court!

I am getting downvoted. That is OK. CA requires a few things for Trans people to qualify as a gender other than the one indicated at birth. A complete transition is not required.

Frankly, gender fluidity and greater gender role freedom are two things I fully expect to play out in court. Both need to be addressed, and then more normalized.

Interesting times ahead.

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#126

Post by roenxi »

repolfx wrote: post #118
kwxza wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he meant that a potential chilling effect on discussion of such regulation is the likelihood that objectors would be labelled as sexist, thus being ignored as opposed to having their points debated upon their merit.

He didn't say that though, and it wasn't a complex sentence. Logically speaking it's the other way around. People who are for this law are sexists (they want discrimination on the basis of sex) and the people against it are the non-sexists (appoint purely on merit). Obviously it will be inverted in many discussions: Orwell didn't invent the term doublespeak for no reason.

kwxza is correct. Obviously I'm not using the word according to its dictionary definition, but I'm in good company using it to mean "not in the best interests of females". In practice, the meaning of the word is being broadened by activists.

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#127

Post by lawnchair_larry »

barrow-rider wrote: post #117
SpecialistEMT wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which one?

Outside of Christianity, and obesity -- which isn't a protected class IIRC -- I can't think of any that make up more than 51% of the population. The US Black population is around 13%; Hispanic population is closer to 18-19%. Asian and Pacific Islander is around 5%. LBGT population is estimated at around 5-6%; transgender estimated at around 0.3%. Muslims are In 2017, 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the Unite…

"Old people" is actually defined as over 40 as far as protected classes for age discrimination. There are probably more old people than women. Familial status is another.

Re: Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards

#128

Post by subjectsigma »

Extreme left-wing politics is basically defined by hypocrisy at this point. "Discrimination is bad... Unless we do it!" "Violence is bad... Unless you're punching people the mob deems Nazis!" "Free speech is good... Unless you say something we don't like!"

I'd like to imagine that most moderate liberals are seriously embarrassed by this kind of stuff. It seems from the thread that this is true, so that gives me hope that it's not all bad.

Post reply on HN