CA will now require a woman on public company board

[elderado]

Did California actually define what a "woman" is in the legislation?

That would be interesting, indeed.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Did California actually define what a "woman" is in the legislation?

That would be interesting, indeed.

Some of the men might be able to self-identify as women while at board meetings.

I wonder if that counts.

And Elon Musk is acting like he is on the rag these days, so he should count as two women.

 

[Cuddles]

I suppose there should be no reason for the ratio of females in the boards to not be commensurate to overall hiring practices if seen rationally. Would be a better standard IMO.

 

[carrer]

Gender is a social construct. Just identify yourself as a women and you are good to go.

Also, why women need such a law to help them, are they not good enough to compete with men? This law indirectly tells that women are weaker and needed special privileges.

 

[Scataphagos]

Gender is a social construct. Just identify yourself as a women and you are good to go.

Also, why women need such a law to help them, are they not good enough to compete with men? This law indirectly tells that women are weaker and needed special privileges.

Affirmative Action for females?

 

[UsualName]

Did California actually define what a "woman" is in the legislation?

That would be interesting, indeed.

This is actually a very interesting question.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Kind of a slap in the face to women in a way. Now aside from the ones already grandfathered in so to speak, all new ones will never really know if they are there for their own merit or because of Moonbeam's new mandate.

Exactly. And people can look at her and say, you know...you're really only here because you have a vagina.

Take good note, Liberals. This is your chosen path.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Did California actually define what a "woman" is in the legislation?

That would be interesting, indeed.

Someone with guts should put this to the test. Find some guy off the street, pay him some nominal amount to be a board member, and have him identify as a woman, but mostly just live his life as he normally would. Can the state then tell that person how he is to dress, act, and speak?
This is an insult to every woman who has achieved anything on their own merit. The real war on women is being waged by the left.
They're worried about sexual assault, but want men in the bathrooms of women.
They're worried about being taken seriously, then make unsubstantiated claims of assault and/or discrimination.
They're worried about being given opportunity in the workplace, then set things in motion which would have any rational man thinking, I'm not hiring a woman or minority and setting myself up.
The left, judge them by their actions and not their words and you see them for who they really are.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I can hear the "principled conservatives" whining now," But these are private companies."