California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70816
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3172 times
Been thanked: 1175 times

California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:37 pm

California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards
The Mercury News (San Jose, CA)

Just what the headline says. Click the link if you want the grubby details.

IIRC Sweden did something similar years ago and it worked out OK with no particular drama.

But Sweden ain't California.

1) A lot of Mexican-American house servants will get raises and become nominal directors who keep quiet and get paid a lot less than other board members. They might even still have to make up the beds.

2) All male boards will agree among themselves to draw straws to determine who "identifies" as a woman this week.

etc
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8756
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:54 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:37 pm
2) All male boards will agree among themselves to draw straws to determine who "identifies" as a woman this week.
That's what I would do, because it mocks the stoopid.

Image


User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70816
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3172 times
Been thanked: 1175 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:43 pm

Witness wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:25 pm
I presume they have the cash.
Why would you presume such a silly thing? :wink:
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13852
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 332 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by WildCat » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:46 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:37 pm
IIRC Sweden did something similar years ago and it worked out OK with no particular drama.
How did it work out "OK"? Did it accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish? You don't even know what it was supposed to accomplish, do you?
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:37 pm
1) A lot of Mexican-American house servants will get raises and become nominal directors who keep quiet and get paid a lot less than other board members. They might even still have to make up the beds.
LOL what? You think house servants will be appointed to corporate boards? This is off-the-charts stupid.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21484
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1394 times
Been thanked: 1181 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by Anaxagoras » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:07 pm

Female family members of the men on the board. Wives mainly, perhaps adult daughters in some cases. Perhaps girlfriends. Not house servants. And probably not too many men will start to identify as women unless they were already inclined to do so anyway.
Last edited by Anaxagoras on Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22074
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 393 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by gnome » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:07 pm

I am actually looking forward to a case where someone cites a person identifying as female as a defense in hiring discrimination. It raises a lot of interesting issues that I would really like to hear in a venue where (in theory) you have to actually persuade someone. I'm interested in it as a legal puzzle. I think if I were a law professor I would assign it as a mock case and make students take up either side.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70816
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3172 times
Been thanked: 1175 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:21 pm

gnome wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:07 pm
I am actually looking forward to a case where someone cites a person identifying as female as a defense in hiring discrimination. It raises a lot of interesting issues that I would really like to hear in a venue where (in theory) you have to actually persuade someone. I'm interested in it as a legal puzzle. I think if I were a law professor I would assign it as a mock case and make students take up either side.
Already explicitly illegal in some jurisdictions.

As for the house servant thing -- I already knew of a case where house servants were on the payroll as something else (as a form of finagling). But it didn't have to do with being on a board of directors, so maybe bag that one.

But as for the "identifying" as female thing, it's California.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8756
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by xouper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:21 pm

gnome wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:07 pm
I am actually looking forward to a case where someone cites a person identifying as female as a defense in hiring discrimination.
Not exactly a hiring discrimination, but related to the core issue (but complicated by the religious angle):

Transgender Woman Sues After Muslim Refuses Body Waxing Service

My guess is that if it were a Christian who refused to do the waxing, then the liberals would not be defending her. Seems that only Christians get attacked for refusing to bake a cake, er waxing yer nutz, or whatever.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21484
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1394 times
Been thanked: 1181 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by Anaxagoras » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:59 pm

xouper wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:21 pm
gnome wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:07 pm
I am actually looking forward to a case where someone cites a person identifying as female as a defense in hiring discrimination.
Not exactly a hiring discrimination, but related to the core issue (but complicated by the religious angle):

Transgender Woman Sues After Muslim Refuses Body Waxing Service

My guess is that if it were a Christian who refused to do the waxing, then the liberals would not be defending her. Seems that only Christians get attacked for refusing to bake a cake, er waxing yer nutz, or whatever.
You are assuming that liberals are siding with the Muslim.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8756
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:59 pm
xouper wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:21 pm
gnome wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:07 pm
I am actually looking forward to a case where someone cites a person identifying as female as a defense in hiring discrimination.
Not exactly a hiring discrimination, but related to the core issue (but complicated by the religious angle):

Transgender Woman Sues After Muslim Refuses Body Waxing Service

My guess is that if it were a Christian who refused to do the waxing, then the liberals would not be defending her. Seems that only Christians get attacked for refusing to bake a cake, er waxing yer nutz, or whatever.
You are assuming that liberals are siding with the Muslim.
Are you claiming they are not?

According to (some undefined subset of) liberals, anyone who does not side with Muslims is Islamophobic. And by definition, liberals are not Islamophobic. Ergo, they side with the Muslims.

This is classic no-win for liberals, since no matter which side they choose, they undermine their position on "identity politics".

Republicans don't have this dilemma.

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22074
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 393 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by gnome » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:12 am

Most Democrats don't either. Contrary to popular belief, supporting fair treatment for various minorities does not require agreeing with them in every dispute--nor would stubbornly doing so provide any political or material advantage for Democrats. It makes good pithy straw memes though.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13852
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 332 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by WildCat » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:14 am

gnome wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:12 am
Most Democrats don't either. Contrary to popular belief, supporting fair treatment for various minorities does not require agreeing with them in every dispute. It makes good pithy straw memes though.
See? Still thinks it's the Democratic Party of the past. :De_Bunk:
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22074
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 393 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by gnome » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:23 am

We're just on different impressions of the size of that unspecified subset.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8756
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:27 am

gnome wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:12 am
. . . Contrary to popular belief, supporting fair treatment for various minorities does not require agreeing with them in every dispute . . .
Actually, it does. Anytime someone (especially if they are not a liberal) disagrees with a "minority" group or individual, the liberals accuse them of treating that group unfairly. Worse, when two "minority" groups have a conflict of interest (such as in this particular dispute), it is simply not possible to support both of them fairly, according to the definition of "fair" often used by liberals.

If you disagree, then please explain which side of this particular dispute you side with and explain why your choice will be seen by both sides as being supported fairly. I am willing to be persuaded by a reasonable argument.

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8756
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:30 am

gnome wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:23 am
We're just on different impressions of the size of that unspecified subset.
How about if I specify the subset as referring to loud mouth liberal politicians and media darlings. :P

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22074
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 393 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by gnome » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:36 am

I don't quite feel qualified to respond as I'm not familiar with applicable laws. But my impression is that it rests not on whether the customer is female from a legal point of view, but whether the person providing service has the right to decline a specific instance. I lean towards that they might, as it's a fairly personal situation, and might thus not fall under anti-discrimination laws.

But that's just a gut-check.

How other groups would react? On this one probably there'd be some diversity in opinion, I think. Some people would call me names either way.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21484
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1394 times
Been thanked: 1181 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by Anaxagoras » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am

xouper wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am
Are you claiming they are not?
I'm claiming that I read the story and the only person specifically defending the employee is the president of the company that's being sued, so he has an obvious reason to take her side.
According to (some undefined subset of) liberals, anyone who does not side with Muslims is Islamophobic.
Congratulations, that is a textbook example of the strawman fallacy. Show me a real person who says "anyone who does not side with Muslims is Islamophobic" in all cases.
And by definition, liberals are not Islamophobic.
Where did you find this definition of the word liberal? I'd like to see it.
Ergo, they side with the Muslims.
Out of curiosity, who would you side with in this case?
This is classic no-win for liberals, since no matter which side they choose, they undermine their position on "identity politics".
Not really. We don't have to choose sides based on identity politics, we can look at the facts of each case and decide it on the merits. You seem to have a very cartoonish idea about what liberals believe. Many of us classical liberals are not big fans of "identity politics." And "identity politics" isn't limited to left, just so you know. I can cite a few examples if necessary.
Republicans don't have this dilemma.
I would assume Republicans would side with the Muslim and the business owner in this case.
If you believe that a Christian cake maker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then you would probably likewise side with the Muslim in and the business owner in this case.

I probably would too, although I'm not 100% sure without hearing more details. The trans woman was not refused service on a permanent basis, it's just that there was nobody available at the time. If a non-transgender man had walked in at the time, he too would have been told to make an appointment for another time. I guess I'd also want to know whether the transgender woman had an appointment or just walked in. If they had an appointment, arguably they were discriminated against. There also seems to be more to the complaint, about the company "disclosing [the person's] name, gender identity and personal information to various media outlets." I guess I'd have to hear the arguments on both sides and see what the applicable laws say about this before making a ruling.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8756
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:17 am

First, I'd like to thank you for offering some reasonable comments for discussion without also including any gratuitous personal insults. It shows we can disagree and still have a civil conversation. Thus I will assume your comments were made sincerely and I shall try to respond likewise.

xouper wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am
Are you claiming they are not?
Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
I'm claiming that I read the story and the only person specifically defending the employee is the president of the company that's being sued, so he has an obvious reason to take her side.
Fair enough. Good point.

xouper wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am
According to (some undefined subset of) liberals, anyone who does not side with Muslims is Islamophobic.
Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
Congratulations, that is a textbook example of the strawman fallacy. Show me a real person who says "anyone who does not side with Muslims is Islamophobic" in all cases.
Perhaps it is a straw man.

All I ever see on TV (or in other mainstream news media) are examples of liberals who oppose those who dare to say anything at all against Muslims or Islam. I have never seen any liberal on TV (or in other mainstream news media) agree with anyone who disagreed with a Muslim.

So although I cannot point to any specific person who makes the blanket assertion that "anyone who does not side with Muslims is Islamophobic", I also cannot recall any specific person reported by the media (or in the media) who has explicitly said the opposite. (More on that below.) Or perhaps I am suffering from selective memory.

xouper wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am
And by definition, liberals are not Islamophobic.
Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
Where did you find this definition of the word liberal? I'd like to see it.
OK, you got me there. I pulled it out of my ass. 8)

In my defense, I do not know of any liberals who are Islamophobic, but I am willing to be persauded by a counter-example, if you have any.

xouper wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am
Ergo, they side with the Muslims.
Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
Out of curiosity, who would you side with in this case?
I disagree with both sides.

Which is sort of a conundrum because no matter how the court case goes, or no matter which way I would hope it goes, one side will, effectively, "win". However, that does not mean I sided with them.

Even worse, this case involves two principles (or civil liberties, if you prefer) that are in conflict. And those principles can stand apart from any "identity groups" involved. One is the right of customers not to be discriminated against, and the other is the right of a person not to provide a service they don't want to provide. I have mixed feelings about it, but I tend to favor the idea that contracts between people must be mutually agreed upon.

I don't know if that answers your question.

xouper wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am
This is classic no-win for liberals, since no matter which side they choose, they undermine their position on "identity politics".
Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
Not really. We don't have to choose sides based on identity politics, we can look at the facts of each case and decide it on the merits.
Well said.

I have not yet seen any liberals in the mainstream media say that.

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
You seem to have a very cartoonish idea about what liberals believe.
Yes, it may seem that way. You may be right. I don't know many liberals in person and so most of my impressions are from liberals in the mainstream media, many of which behave in a cartoonish way. Rachel Maddow or Lawrence O'Donnell or Maxine Waters, for example.

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
Many of us classical liberals are not big fans of "identity politics."
I did not know that. You would not make a Good Democrat™ then. :P

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
And "identity politics" isn't limited to left, just so you know. I can cite a few examples if necessary.
Some examples would be helpful, especially so I can see what you mean by "identity politics".

xouper wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am
Republicans don't have this dilemma.
Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
I would assume Republicans would side with the Muslim and the business owner in this case.
If you believe that a Christian cake maker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then you would probably likewise side with the Muslim in and the business owner in this case.
I am sympathetic to the idea that businesses that are open to serving the public at large should not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, political views, sex, gender, etc. I would have a very difficult time siding with a business that refused service to all gays or all black people, for example.

With one big exception. If the service offered has significant first amendment issues, then the artisan's first amendment rights take precedence if he so wishes. And by that I mean, for example, that an author (or any other artisan) cannot be compelled to create a work expressing views he does not agree with.

OK, one more exception. I would side with a business that chooses not to offer intimate genital related services to both sexes. For example, I would not have a problem with a business that offers a bikini wax only to those who do not have male genitals. And I don't care what their reason is, whether religious or merely personal. Just as I would side with women who want to use a bathroom that excludes people with male genitals, even if those people identify as "female". And I would side with a woman's jail that refuses to allow a prisoner with male genitals, even if that prisoner identifies as "female".

Having said all that, I will make on more confession. When I was captain and manager of an adult amateur hockey team in Tampa Bay, I actively recruited female players who wanted to play in our league. In fact, ours was the first team to do so in our league. I also arranged for separate locker rooms for the women at their request. As it turns out, unlike professional hockey, the skill level required in our league did not clearly favor the men. Or to put it another way, the men in our league were no better than the women, so why exclude the women who wanted to play, was my philosophy.

Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
I probably would too, although I'm not 100% sure without hearing more details. The trans woman was not refused service on a permanent basis, it's just that there was nobody available at the time. If a non-transgender man had walked in at the time, he too would have been told to make an appointment for another time. I guess I'd also want to know whether the transgender woman had an appointment or just walked in. If they had an appointment, arguably they were discriminated against. There also seems to be more to the complaint, about the company "disclosing [the person's] name, gender identity and personal information to various media outlets." I guess I'd have to hear the arguments on both sides and see what the applicable laws say about this before making a ruling.
Those are all good points.

User avatar
xouper
Posts: 8756
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Location: HockeyTown USA
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: California becomes first state to require a woman on corporate boards

Post by xouper » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:54 am

xouper wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:17 am
And by definition, liberals are not Islamophobic.
Anaxagoras wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:42 am
Where did you find this definition of the word liberal? I'd like to see it.
xouper wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am
OK, you got me there. I pulled it out of my ass. 8)

In my defense, I do not know of any liberals who are Islamophobic, but I am willing to be persauded by a counter-example, if you have any.
So I looked to see if there is such a definition supporting my assertion. And here's what I found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism wrote:To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and toleration. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterise a stable social order.[70] Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek conformity and homogeneity in the way that people think. In fact, their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that harmonises and minimises conflicting views, but still allows those views to exist and flourish.[71] For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree.[72] From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to religious toleration, with Baruch Spinoza condemning "the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars".[72] Toleration also played a central role in the ideas of Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society will contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.[72]
That (more or less) is consistent with what I said, that by definition, liberals are tolerant (and not phobic) about people who have other religious beliefs.

Except of course Christianity, which they seem to despise, especially when a Christian baker refuses to create a special cake for a gay wedding. I would like to see what happens if a Muslim cakemaker makes a similar refusal. I suspect heads would explode under the strain of cognitive dissonance.