MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Brickbat: Women Trouble

BusinesswomanElnur / Dreamstime.comCalifornia state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, a Democrat, wants to force firms based in the Golden State to add women to their boards. A bill she has introduced would require all publicly traded firms to have at least one female board member by the end of 2019 or face fines. Firms with five directors would have to have two female board members by the end of 2021, and companies with six or more directors would have to have at least three female board members.

Photo Credit: Elnur / Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rat on a train||

    Come on Cali. You forgot to include a "undocumented immigrant" requirement.

  • Rat on a train||

    The linked article says the bill defines women as anyone who identifies as a woman? I haven't read the bill. Does that include women that vote Republican?

  • Longtobefree||

    Absolutely not.
    Anyone voting Republican in California is, by law, designated as a old, fat, white, male, regardless of appearance, DNA, personal preference, or whatever.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " Firms with five directors would have to have two female board members by the end of 2012, and companies with six or more directors would have to have at least three female board members."

    How many men would they have to have?

    A board of Xes is illegal then?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Just have two of the five male board members identify as women.

    *drops microphone*

  • Rat on a train||

    Since gender is fluid, they only have to identify during board meetings.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    Chairman: For regulatory compliance, Frank shall identify as a woman and be referred to as Francene for the duration of this meeting. Ayes?

    Crowd: Aye!

    Chairman: Nays?

    Frank: Nay!

    Chairman: Motion passes.

    Francene: Why do I always have to be the woman!

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    If conscription is legal, surely this is too!

  • Ska||

    Mr. Pink sounds like Mr. Pussy. How 'bout if I'm Mr. Purple? That sounds good to me. I'll be Mr. Purple.

  • Eidde||

    "The bill defines "female" as an individual who identifies her gender as a woman, regardless of the person's designated sex at birth."

    BURNS: OK, Smithers, you get to be the woman.

    SMITHERS: That's great sir!

    BURNS: The woman on the Board of Directors, numbskull.

    SMITHERS: Oh, ah, that's fine, too, sir.

  • Ska||

    Nicely done.

  • Oli||

    Way to devalue women..

  • Hackmaschine Mutter||

    ^^This. I've never needed the guvment to have a "law" to force a company to allow me to succeed.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Says you when you're not even aware of your own inherent weaknesses and shortcomings.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Come on, you know "you didn't build that." Your future female board members did, in a way.

  • Trollificus||

    Well, that depends on what "in a way" is, in a way.

  • Oli||

    I'm not a woman, but I know lots of highly successful women in leadership positions. And I doubt that they got there via some kind of quota. Sure, there is a gap between women and men in the workforce, but the dinosaurs responsible for it are slowly retiring or dying off. Give it some time and don't try to enforce it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Firms with five directors would have to have two female board members by the end of 2012...

    If California women think that such retroactive action is possible, I'll take the fines.

  • Eidde||

    "Math is hard! (unlike Ken)"

  • Rat on a train||

    The fines would also have to be paid in 2012.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Penalties for non-payment will accrue monthly.

  • Miter Broller||

    This is easy to get around in this 'gender-fluid' era we find ourselves in today. On certification day, 1 penis-carrying member of the board simply 'identifies' as female. Done and done!!!

  • steve walsh||

    California state senator doing her part to drive businesses from the state.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    I wonder what is motivating the movement to split California into multiple states?

  • Longtobefree||

    Haven't you read?
    It is driven by evil white men who cannot accept the necessity of the benevolent state to run their lives in minute detail.

  • Rich||

    If it helps just one girl succeed, it will be worth it.

    Diversity > fiscal health.

  • Trollificus||

    Diversity>Reality.

  • Longtobefree||

    Interesting that it is a democrat who takes the position that women are so weak and fragile that they cannot succeed on their own, and must have the help of a male dominated legislature to allow just a privileged few to advance just one more step on the male defined path to success.
    When the EU (or maybe one of the Scandinavian guys?) did this, all they got was the same small group of already successful women appointed to multiple boards where they get outvoted all the time. But it looks good somehow if you are a statist.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Someone should ask her how she got elected without legislative diktats that set aside a proportion of seats for women.
    And which of her male colleagues helped her draft the bill.

  • Rich||

    Legislation by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson [will] ensure students in California's public schools learn how to ... act ethically, responsibly, and safely online

    This bill establishes a state-based advisory committee comprised of educators, administrators, researchers, and parents who will work under the oversight of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop best practices, resources, and models for instruction.

    That committee had jolly well better be at least half women!

  • Amir Najam Sethit||

    Justify for girls.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    As a left-libertarian who values tolerance and diversity, I think this is a good idea. In college I learned that when any protected demographic group is underrepresented in a desirable job, it can only be the result of factors like the patriarchy or systemic racism. Affirmative action is the best tool we have to combat such institutional biases.

    #LibertariansForQuotas

  • Rich||

    Of course, the demographic group in question must be "protected" and the job "desirable" for "institutional biases" to have produced such distortion.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Precisely. That's why I disagree with the dumb conservative argument that there's a diversity problem in the NBA. White players might technically be underrepresented, sure, but in a white supremacist country like the US they cannot be the victims of racism.

    I am also not bothered by women making up well under 50% of the workforce in jobs with the highest fatality rates.

  • Shirley Knott||

    What about the 'icky' jobs? Garbage collectors, butchers, pot-hole fillers, stevedores, etc?

  • Brian||

    Not fair.

    I want to stay home have affairs with housewives while my legally mandated working wife pays for all my shit.

    We're underepresented.

  • perlchpr||

    This is the second best parody account running now, after Kirkland. Thumbs up, OBL! :D

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah this is silly.
    Boards should be free to appoint and hire whomever they like.

  • Rich||

    "What if it were *your* mother, sister, wife, or daughter not appointed to the board?"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Then I'd be relieved!

  • lap83||

    "This is one of the last good-ol'-boy fiefdoms, and we need to do something drastic about it."

    So the assumption is that the boards are all cesspools of sexism that hundreds of women are struggling to be a part of. But why would you want to participate in an environment where you are hated? Especially since under the new rules women still wouldn't be a majority. Obviously we need to replace all of the men with women.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unconstitutional.

    There is nothing in the US or California Constitutions that allows government to force women (or men) on private corporation boards.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Unconstitutional until the Court or the CA Supreme Court get their hands on it. Because diversity.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Yep - that's just what I was going to post but you beat me to it.

    Absolutely unconstitutional.

    Where does this mind set come from that government automatically has authority to dictate virtually anything and everything relating to the private sector?

  • Trollificus||

    Commerce Clause, man. (or woman)

    The existence of majority-male corporate boards affects interstate commerce. Hell, EVERYTHING affects interstate commerce, so therefore...what ELSE effects interstate commerce?

    A duck!

    Ah, who are you who are so wise in the ways of economics?

  • Longtobefree||

    General welfare
    Interstate commerce
    Equal protection
    Because we can
    All of those are constitutional reasons for doing this

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    Sad to say, Hannah-Beth is my representative in the California Senate. I shudder to think what other totalitarian ideas she holds. The problem probably has its roots in the airheads up in Santa Barbara, because Democracy.

    When Jerry Brown rides off into the sunset, these are the people who will be taking over. It's going to be a disaster.

  • Longtobefree||

    The higher elevations in Arizona are nice this time of year - - - - - - -
    U-haul has an app now - - - - - - -
    Unemployment is at an all time low - - - - - - - -

    Hmmmmm, what to do, what to do?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online