3 ms·
Whereever you might fall on the left-right spectrum, this law is sexist, discriminatory, idiotic, and an escalation of the brewing gender war. If the law requi
by drtr 8y ago
Whereever you might fall on the left-right spectrum, this law is sexist, discriminatory, idiotic, and an escalation of the brewing gender war.
If the law required a 50/50 gender split on boards, or at least one member of each gender or similar, I wouldn't find it offensive. As is, it allows all-female boards and bans all-male ones.
Laws like this are what energize the Trump political base.
- r_smart 8y ago>If the law required a 50/50 gender split on boards I'm curious why you would see that as an improvement. Care to elaborate?
- gizmo686 8y agoAs written (assuming the article is an accurate portrayal), the law is a blatent violation of the equal protection clause, as it provides a protection for women that it does not provide for men. A neutral requirement is not such a blatent violation. Although it still runs the risk of a disparite impact argurment and, perhaps more damming, seems to be in direct contradiction with federal (and likely state, but more specific wins there) anti discrimination laws. Or rather, compliance would involve violating other laws, at least in some cases.
- r_smart 8y agoAh, gotcha. It seems more wrong to me, but I guess I'm thinking in terms of 'What would this do' as opposed to 'Is this law a violation of various laws / legal philosophy'.
- syntheticcdo 8y agoThe law permits all female boards but does not permit all male boards. This is discrimination.