Gender Bias
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:07 pm
Gender bias is still available in this country, albeit not in its traditional form.
Beginning next year, California's corporate board rooms will be required to take on a different look.
Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed landmark legislation that will require all publicly traded companies with headquarters in California to have at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019. The minimum requisite will increase to two by the end of 2021.
No other state has passed similar legislation, although a handful have approved nonbinding resolutions with a similar aim of gender equality.
Though Brown expressed some misgivings about the law, which has been criticized as governmental intrusion into private business, he saw more pros than cons in its passage.
I wholeheartedly agree that a person is entitled to that which they have rightfully earned - regardless of race, sex, color, or creed. And I would prefer, on this topic, to avoid notions that will inevitably devolve into a recognition/dismissal of the fact that women have only been earnest members of the American "publicly traded" workforce for less than a century - compared to men having been entrenched since Tuttle's red Barn or the Lorillard Tobacco Company....(and please, dear Lawd, avoid the tedious, tiresome, minutia of citing pay rate arguments - since that is not part of this legislation per se)
What merit does this particular legislation have for the people of California and is anything revealed by it being particular only to "publicly traded" corporations with headquarters in California?

Beginning next year, California's corporate board rooms will be required to take on a different look.
Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed landmark legislation that will require all publicly traded companies with headquarters in California to have at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019. The minimum requisite will increase to two by the end of 2021.
No other state has passed similar legislation, although a handful have approved nonbinding resolutions with a similar aim of gender equality.
Though Brown expressed some misgivings about the law, which has been criticized as governmental intrusion into private business, he saw more pros than cons in its passage.
I wholeheartedly agree that a person is entitled to that which they have rightfully earned - regardless of race, sex, color, or creed. And I would prefer, on this topic, to avoid notions that will inevitably devolve into a recognition/dismissal of the fact that women have only been earnest members of the American "publicly traded" workforce for less than a century - compared to men having been entrenched since Tuttle's red Barn or the Lorillard Tobacco Company....(and please, dear Lawd, avoid the tedious, tiresome, minutia of citing pay rate arguments - since that is not part of this legislation per se)
What merit does this particular legislation have for the people of California and is anything revealed by it being particular only to "publicly traded" corporations with headquarters in California?