I agree. I support the principle behind this legislation, but it seems to set a dangerous precedent for giving the state government the authority to mandate demographics.
Agreed. Allowing the governments to dictate the demographic makeup of private organizations is just asking for trouble. If we continue down this path I'm sure people will screw it up and use it for bad things (like universally bad, not just considered bad by the affected minority) within a generation or two.
(1) It's sexist in an attempt to solve sexism in the same way that affirmative action is racist in an attempt to solve racism. Sometimes, the ends justify the means. Unless you believe that only old white men are capable of being on the board you should ask yourself why only old white men are on the board. What is it about society, or the system, that has gotten us to where we are? What if we tried this and see what happens? If it doesn't work maybe let's roll it back? I do know for sure doing nothing won't change anything, at least based on the trendline.
It's really easy to sit there and say this law is sexist if you stand to benefit from the status quo. I'm not sure you do, I know nothing about you - this is an observation in general.
(2) We can have two problems. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve one. This is akin to the argument that California should be dealing with the homeless instead of banning straws. It should be, and is, doing both. We can have two problems. We can work on multiple problems simultaneously. And having two problems isn't a license to sit on your hands and do nothing until you have a way to solve both at the same time. Further, if this works remarkably well in some way maybe it'll be a good template for future change? Or a lesson as to why we shouldn't do it this way.
> Unless you believe that only old white men are capable of being on the board you should ask yourself why only old white men are on the board.
Have you asked that question and looked for a scientifically valid answer instead of jumping to bigotry?
There are many objective reasons for that, one being:
> Fewer women than men become executive managers. They earn less over their careers, hold more junior positions, and exit the occupation at a faster rate. We compiled a large panel data set on executives and formed a career hierarchy to analyze mobility and compensation rates. We found that, controlling for executive rank and background, women earn higher compensation than men, experience more income uncertainty, and are promoted more quickly. Amongst survivors, being female increases the chance of becoming CEO. Hence, the unconditional gender pay gap and job-rank differences are primarily attributable to female executives exiting at higher rates than men in an occupation where survival is rewarded with promotion and higher compensation.
> There is still a question of why women have a higher nonmarket outside option than men. One explanation is that women acquire more nonmarket human capital than men throughout their lives, and hence find retirement a relatively attractive option. Women in the top executive market are mostly beyond childbearing age, but there is evidence that such women are more likely to leave for personal and other household reasons than their male counterparts. For example, Sicherman (1996) finds that in a case study of a large insurance company, female executives were more likely than their male counterparts to exit the firm because of better working conditions elsewhere, to be near home, change of residence, household duties, personal health, illness in the family, and positions abolished. Most of those reasons, except position abolished, are voluntary departures related to home or family.
Imagine the job prospects of your average handicapped, transgender blasian lesbian? You could have your pick of any company board.
I kid, but I can't help but imagine there will be some unintended consequences of legislation like this.