AnonymousBy Alicia Journey
With Senator Hannah Beth Jackson’s (D-Santa Barbara) Senate Bill 826 on its way to Governor Jerry Brown as of last week, California is poised to become the first state to require gender diversity on corporate boards. This is a triumphant step forward towards addressing the issue of gender inequality. It is no small feat that we here in Santa Barbara are on the forefront of change.
How have we been able to get here?
Attention surrounding gender-based issues has surged in recent years involving Politics, Education, Sports, Entertainment, Faith Based Communities and Corporations. This rise in awareness can be attributed to social media campaigns such as, #NoMore, #MeToo, #ChurchToo, #ITakeAStand, #SeeTheSigns. In addition, the 2017 women’s marches were one of, if not the largest, protests in American history, drawing crowds of over 3 million nationwide.
What is the next step in moving this conversation forward locally and as a culture?
What if we were to take a restorative approach to gender-based issues in our country, in our world? What if we were to allow for all parties impacted to be heard, to participate in the solution, and to elevate the discussion beyond what is not working so that we may focus on what is. What if we were to truly make this a human rights issue and not just a women’s rights issue?
Real and lasting change will not happen surrounding gender equality until everyone, including men, are at the table.
With a surge in attention surrounding this issue, there is also a great divide that has become evident within our country. An underlying current of anger and mistrust. An us versus them mentality. Where does this leave us as a country. We are a nation divided.
A Restorative Approach.
A restorative approach does not mean that the stories of gender-based injustices are not real, nor that the anger surrounding them is not justified. It merely asks the question: Now What?
If we were to frame this conversation from a ‘Forgiveness First’ stance, we may be able to invite men everywhere to the table so that we can discuss the issues from a place of understanding. One in which we take into account that the men who are fostering unsafe environments for women in our country, in our schools, in our workplaces and on our sports fields were all little boys once. If we were to see them as bi-products of the culture we have fostered that makes it not only ‘okay’ to diminish a woman’s voice, her impact and her worth but also makes it ‘manly’ to physically dominate a woman; what space does this open up within the conversation of gender equality?
I suggest that by framing the discussion with this mindset we would open up a seat at the table. One that is firmly rooted in compassion. One that welcomes the men in our life that show us daily that this fight is not just a woman’s fight, but rather it is a human fight. A seat that allows for men who have seen themselves in the #MeToo posts and recognize that #TheyToo were unwilling participants in female discrimination at times in their life to stand up and say, “I’m sorry, how do we make it better?”.
By joining forces on this topic, it makes it a human rights issue instead of a women’s issue and allows for everyone to get behind the movement, elevate the discussion and effect real and lasting changes.
How do we bring this discussion into the communities within our sphere of influence?
We here in Santa Barbara have the unique opportunity to frame the next stage of this conversation in a way that does not leave anyone out, but rather makes room for all voices to be heard.
The University of Berkeley’s Graduate Statistics program conducted roundtable discussions surrounding gender issues on their campus with the ultimate question of how to encourage a culture of gender equality [1]. Within these roundtable discussions, men and women discussed incidences of gender bias that had occurred on the campus. These discussions were facilitated by both a male and a female to encourage participation from both interested parties. This phenomenon moved the culture of their campus forward leaps and bounds because both sides of the discussion were able to be heard and were able to participate.
Let us continue the good work that has been done by our legislative champion, Senator Hannah Beth Jackson. Join me in bringing roundtable discussions surrounding gender issues into our community so that we can answer the burning question resulting from the rallying call for change: #NowWhat? How’s with me?
Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at . The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.
I agree very much with this approach, and have been greatly dismayed by the hostile reaction to C.K. Lewis merely showing up to do a gig at a club known for surprise appearances (where he was mostly warmly received).
Based on this logic, we should also require every board to have someone under the age of 25.
Corporate boards should be comprised of the most competent members they can find. Jackson’s bill takes away the freedoms of choice and association and sets in place a regime of government coercion. Many will perceive some women’s boardmembers as tokens. Boards may be forced less qualified members at times. When state government meddles like this it must accept the unintended consequences, one of which is making California less business friendly.
Totally support this author’s ideas. As a woman that has faced being frozen out at higher levels because I didn’t have a wife at home taking care of the kid and didn’t play golf, I like Jackson’s bill. Women are the deciders of what gets purchased in their households, and corporate boards are fools to ignore this purchasing power. I also like the idea of having men witness what women are put through, in conversation like this. I have been amazed by the men who showed up to support women in the Women’s Marches, and during #MeToo. They’re showing others the way.
Funny, then, how so many corporate boards these days seem to select incompetents who are only interested in sucking money out for themselves, bringing their best buddies onboard the gravy train, and getting golden parachutes.
Jackson should stay out of private business operations. Claiming she has this right because they are California registered corporations is 100% bogus. She is well in over her head Jackson needs to read “The Outsiders” so she can better understand what it takes to create a successful board of directors if one wants a successful operation. Vanity boards, which is what Jackson is now mandating, is a sure sign of a company will soon be going down hill.
“Gender diversity…”, this state just keeps getting more and more backwards. How about some “competent diversity”. And we wonder why infrastructure is literally collapsing on us, with this ridiculousness. We’d probably have better luck if we just chose names out of a hat or held a lottery.
Outrageous government over-reach! Hannah-Beth knows zero about business: her and her husband’s survival is government dependent. She’ll regulate and tax until she conquers all yo end up with nothing. Competent, energized, focused pros are sought to serve on corporate boards. As a woman I have never experienced discrimination but I am discriminating as a business owner. I am unwilling to accommodate the entitled lacking exemplary work standards and ability to contribute. Think ROI especially when voting for representatives.
Time to move businesses out of CA.
I find this hashtag terminology tedious and affected. Just speak English.
Support this 100%.
I’d be surprised if Jerry Brown signs this bill. It is just goofy, way over-reaching the legitimate purview of government. IF it should become law, I would predict it won’t survive a court challenge, even in the liberal 9th Circuit. Hannah-Beth should know better.
Board members should be chosen based on competence and fit to the strategy of the company. Going down the pathway of mandating board membership to specific demographics: race, gender, age, etc is complete folly. Corporations are good at doing what is best for themselves. If a candidate is selected for board membership, it should be based on what they bring not what they are.
Here is how this is going to play out if it goes into law. There are going to be high numbers of corporations, that will put a female on the board, pay her a small stipend and that’s it, just to meet the obligation. It’s the same thing that happens in Costa Rica. If you want to start a corporation there, you have to have a national citizen on the board, so you pay a local citizen a small fee to be on the board and then setup your business. At the end of the day all it creates is corruption. This is a stupid law. The intent behind it is a good to have the input of women, however the implementation is a big fail.
If some powerful males weren’t such shameless predators of females who can’t protect themselves without dire consequences, this wouldn’t be an issue. If societies–not just ours–didn’t think that males have the god-given-right to do whatever they please to those with less status & power than they have, we wouldn’t have this problem. Not saying there aren’t women as sleezy and immoral, but it’s mostly a male problem. Nuns have a better track record than priests, for instance.)
I see a lot of “what about…..” comments here. They serve to distract from the issue at hand, which is that 50% of the population is largely excluded from having a say in how corporations are run, and no one can think of any valid reason why this should be the case. If society won’t do the right thing on its own, then government has to pass imperfect laws to try and move us ahead to achieving those goals. This bill is a baby step in that direction- at least one woman on a board. Maybe this will be a step in the right direction to addressing the CEO pay inequality issues.
There is a reason why private corporations are called “private.” The government socialist elites like Jackson have no business telling private companies how to run their business. And if these corporations ran their businesses like our government is run they would soon be out of business.
Jackson needs to review Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Reverse discrimination about to rear its ugly head. Legislating political correctness is a slippery slope.