Patterico's Pontifications

9/3/2021

California Democrat Legislators and Their Priorities

Filed under: General — JVW @ 1:50 pm



[guest post by JVW]

COVID. Recall elections. Homelessness. Wildfires. Drought. Racial unrest. Housing shortages. Unaffordable pension obligations. All of these are huge problems plaguing the Golden State. So what is our state legislature, controlled entirely by Democrats from the more leftish flank of the party, working on in the final days of this legislative session?

California could soon force large department stores to display some child products in gender neutral ways after the state Legislature passed a bill on Wednesday aimed at getting rid of traditional pink and blue marketing schemes for items like toys and toothbrushes.

The bill would not outlaw traditional boys and girls sections in department stores, but it would require retailers to have a gender neutral section to display “a reasonable selection” of items “regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys.”

The bill would only apply to department stores with 500 or more employees, so most small businesses would be exempt. It also wouldn’t apply to clothes, just toys and “childcare items,” which include hygiene and teething products.

The state Senate passed the bill Wednesday, sending it back to the Assembly for a procedural vote before it heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. If it becomes law, California would become the first state to require these sections in stores, according to the office of Assemblyman Evan Low, the bill’s author.

Because females, who comprise 58% of bachelor’s degrees earners and are now over 50% of doctorates conferred each year, are truly being held back by big block toy stores. There is almost no problem too picayune for progressives to pursue government-imposed solutions. More on this lunacy:

This is at least the third time California lawmakers have tried to pass this bill, with previous versions failing to pass in 2019 and 2020. Low, a Democrat from Campbell, said the measure was inspired by a 10-year-old girl named Britten whose mother works in his legislative office.

“Britten asked her mom while shopping why certain things in a store were ‘off limits’ to her because she was a girl, but would be fine if she was a boy,” Low said. “Thankfully, my colleagues recognized the pure intentions of this bill and the need to let kids be kids.”

But of course the toys weren’t at all “off limits” to young Britten: there’s hardly a toy store across the fruited plain from sea to shining see (and you too, Alaska and Hawaii) which would refuse to sell a “boy’s toy” to a little girl. In a functional world, Britten’s mom would have told her this and dissuaded her from the notion that she isn’t free to shop in whatever toy aisle she chooses, but of course Britten’s mom is a political employee for a far-left Democrat and so there’s a pretty strong chance that she is entirely unacquainted with reality to begin with.

And when a Republican senator tried to point out that perhaps this matter is too piddly even for hyper-sensitive California to deal with, the intersectionality matrix and the litany of past unconscious toxic heteronormativity reared their ugly heads:

Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, said that while both he and Low are “childless gay men,” he defended their right to have opinions about children and families.

“We know what it was like to grow up not conforming to the way that your gender is supposed to be,” he said, adding: “This is about making safe spaces for all children in today’s society and not pushing, sometimes forcing children to conform.”

And so there you have it. Once Gavin Newsom signs this bill (and why wouldn’t he?) into law, these big box retailers will face fines of up to $250 for the first offense and up to $500 for the second offense. There’s no word on what a third and subsequent offenses will set back the user, but if it doubles each time then the dreaded thirteenth offense should come in at about $1 million. So as we slide into this Labor Day Weekend nervously tracking the rise in COVID cases, fretting about wildfires, worrying about the homeless people as the weather cools, and wondering where we’re going to get the money to pay for pensions down the road, take heart that in just 27 short months from now our state’s children will no longer have to deal with the heinousness of segregated toy aisles, and Barbie and G.I. Joe can at last share the same shelf at your local Wal-Mart. Progress.

– JVW

41 Responses to “California Democrat Legislators and Their Priorities”

  1. We simply are not a serious people in this state any longer.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  2. A bit more California-centric data regarding the dominance of female students in all levels of higher education these days, here are the numbers at some of the state’s most prestigious campuses:

    UC San Diego – 50.2% female
    Claremont McKenna campuses – 50.3% female
    Stanford – 50.4% female (this year’s freshman class is 52% female
    USC – 52% female
    UC Berkeley – 54% female
    UCLA – 58.6% female

    OK, OK, I will grant that Cal Tech is still 54.7% male.

    How all of these women overcame the hardships brought on by toy-segregation in big block stores is beyond my comprehension.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  3. Eh, if Newsom signs this into law, then he has just again fired up the Recall Newsom folks.

    My beef against this is that it’s simply staggering that this is what our legislature is wasting time and money on. Of course, this is just another special interest bloc trying to use the force of government to compel others to bend to the will of a few. I don’t really care that Target now has a neutral clothing section for children (I have seen it). Whatever. But using the force of government to compel stores to do this just seems like a big waste of time. Especially in light of a major homeless crisis, continuing drought, onerous tax burden and other critical issues we are facing in our state. But of course, it’s easier to focus on neutral toys/clothes and look like you’re being effective, while the real and very essential issues are ignored because they really don’t have any solutions (that are viable to the super majority left, anyway).

    Dana (174549)

  4. i wonder if jen psaki thinks wiener and low have informed opinions about children and families

    JF (e1156d)

  5. Perhaps more appropriate for Weekend Open Thread, but could well be immediately downstream of this topic:

    https://sports.yahoo.com/can-anything-stop-californias-mass-qb-exodus-033645157.html

    urbanleftbehind (165768)

  6. Especially in light of a major homeless crisis, continuing drought, onerous tax burden and other critical issues we are facing in our state.

    That’s the point, right? I wonder if deep down inside — where their carefully-buried thoughts are locked away — these progressive Democrats actually realize that government can’t do much to solve these sort of problems without really upsetting the status quo that they have spent generations building, so they pick these small-ball issues because it’s quite simple to write mindless compliance regulation and then take a victory lap to cheering feminists and the LGBT crowd. Ted Lieu, the Congressman regrettably serving Patterico and me, has built an entire political career built on boutique legislation that means nothing much except for a core group of activists whose attention he needs to capture at various times. We are truly demonstrating the suggestion that democracy will eventually run its course, especially when it is the same people over and over running the state.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  7. Oh my.

    Gay boys Low and Weiner have this to ponder: nothing sexier in Toy Story XXX than a leggy blonde Barbie clad in bikini briefs and one of Ken’s shirts cruising the GI Joe aisle, too. 😉

    “Hello, sailor!”

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  8. https://sports.yahoo.com/can-anything-stop-californias-mass-qb-exodus-033645157.html

    Perhaps $15/gallon gas would stop traffic. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  9. Perhaps more appropriate for Weekend Open Thread, but could well be immediately downstream of this topic:

    Oh man, if I tried to write a post on what I think is wrong with college football in California, I would probably end up with 50,000 words. Suffice to say that there are so many factors, but watching the last few years of the best quarterbacks in the Golden State depart for Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, and Ole Miss has been pretty painful.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  10. I’m just having a lot of trouble getting over the role that young Britten’s experience played in all of this. I think that anecdote really explains the vast ideological differences in this country. If a child asks you “Why are these toys off-limits?” it seems to be that the conservative would immediately reply, “Why would you think they are off-limits? You can shop for any toys you like in this store.” A progressive, though, apparently would say, “Hey, I have to get my state representatives to ban these stores from presenting their merchandise in a way that might make my child think they aren’t welcome to purchase certain items.” I just don’t understand that mindset at all.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  11. 9 – That has to hurt. I miss the days of “Fumble” being versed by Kieth Jackson.

    mg (8cbc69)

  12. 7, more likely some Dudley Moore-Susan Anton couples:

    https://youtu.be/VFNwirt210k

    urbanleftbehind (165768)

  13. Once Gavin Newsom signs this bill (and why wouldn’t he?)…..

    Because it will do exactly what Dana says, fire up the pro-recall side. Newsom is nothing if not politically smart (with lapses, like dining out at the French Laundry).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  14. Otter gotta go!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. Look for the legislature to take a look at Texas’ abortion law and allow citizens to sue gun owners and gun stores without state involvement.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  16. Oooooohhhh… a hissy fit. Sounds about right…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. California could soon force large department stores to display some child products in gender neutral ways after the state Legislature passed a bill on Wednesday aimed at getting rid of traditional pink and blue marketing schemes for items like toys and toothbrushes.

    The compelled speech doctrine would seem to stop this completely. It does not matter that the group compelled is small.

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  18. Also, what about the Merced-Bakrsfield bullet train? Or is calling it a “bullet” train going to “trigger” someone?

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  19. BTW, I’m in L.A. for a week and gas prices really are pushing $5/gallon here. Even the “low-cost” stations are at $4.29 for regular.

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  20. Still the sushi is much better than in ABQ

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  21. There is a point where the pendulum cannot swing any further Left and must move Right again.

    Kevin M (e4323c)


  22. Look for the legislature to take a look at Texas’ abortion law and allow citizens to sue gun owners and gun stores without state involvement.

    On what grounds? Where is their injury?

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  23. Kevin M (e4323c) — 9/3/2021 @ 3:57 pm

    To which the people of CA, and their representatives, say both “hold my beer” and “hey, watch this”.

    frosty (f27e97)

  24. Just take down any “Toys For Boys” and “Toys For Girls” signs! Make the whole toy department gender neutral. Say what? You haven’t had any for thirty years? Why you, you, … you just wanted to make us look like fools!

    nk (1d9030)

  25. Look for the legislature to take a look at Texas’ abortion law and allow citizens to sue gun owners and gun stores without state involvement.

    On what grounds? Where is their injury?

    That’s the problem with the Texas law-persons unaffected by someone else’s abortion aren’t injured, yet they can enforce a law that contravenes Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The CA legislature, however, could give gun victims the right to enforce the state’s restrictive gun laws, even though it would contravene a constitutional right and federal law.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  26. Yeah, that’s a problem with being pro-life. The company you keep. Celibates and monastics who find relief in pederasty on your one side and froth-mouthed sh!tkickers on your other.

    It’s kind of a dilemma, honestly. I would never shoot a roundheels without the wherewithal to keep her legs together or the sense to use protection. Pederasts and sh!tkickers on the other hand ….

    nk (1d9030)

  27. I think there are injuries in every abortion, but the “victim” is in no position to complain. The two situations are not alike. Would it be better if the new law allowed the State to bring suit, as it does in defense of a minor?

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  28. @24: They really want to stop the sexist separation of clothes.

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  29. Just replace abortion with any Constitutional right. How about the 19th Amendment? Better not do anything that assists a woman to vote. The 15th? Stay on the safe side and don’t sell gas to anyone who might use it to drive to a polling place. The 1st? Whatcha doing giving money to that church for, and is that a newspaper you just bought? Do I need to go on?

    nk (1d9030)

  30. Um, where is abortion mentioned in that document? It is certainly not without limits in any event. Guns, speech, religion, assembly and even voting are not unregulated in some way. Is the (at best) unenumerated right of abortion more important than the right to assembly?

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  31. Not that I think the TX law is reasonable.

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  32. Kevin, the problem is the state has given a private right to sue for something that’s legal.

    Pick any legal thing you like and your opponents don’t and think about it.

    The law gets worse from there.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  33. Yes, and I think that it is better attacked on that basis. If such a law can stand, then all kinds of shenanigans are possible. But I doubt that the initial appeal took that tack.

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  34. The Ninth Amendment … where do I start? It says unenumerated rights are just as good as enumerated ones. Even under Bork’s view, it should still serve as a restraint on lawmakers, if not as a smorgasbord for Marbury v. Madison and Gitlow v. New York (selective incorporation).

    And there are more regulations on abortion than on any other right, I think, or is there another that requires graduation from medical school, residency, state licensure, a clinic or hospital, and malpractice insurance?

    And, anyway, I’m not defending abortion. I am objecting to the utter lawlessness of the Texas law. It exemplifies “No one’s life, liberty or property is safe when the legislature is in session”. The Texas legislature, anyway.

    nk (1d9030)

  35. Kevin, I’ll be honest. I looked at your comment but not the comment you replied to.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  36. More to the point, such a law targeting heroin sales should be invalid. The fact that this is about something that some call a “right” is immaterial.

    Kevin M (e4323c)

  37. Going to the OP, in a sane state this would be a bit of performative noise for the hard core members of the base. A lot of stores have already switched from girl/boy to type of toy; lego, marvel, barbie, etc. this is *exactly* the kind of thing that can be worked out without government involvement. In a sane state it would get drafted, legislators from both parties could grandstand on it, and it would go no where.

    I have no idea what will happen in California

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  38. California legislators are just following the governor’s cue. In an appearance on Adam Carolla’s podcast in 2013, Gavin said he prefers to work from “small to big”.

    I sh!tteth thee not.

    Here’s a 2-3 minute clip of some other gems from Newsom. Just click on the photo to hear it.

    https://adamcarolla.com/lt-gov-gavin-newsom-and-dennis-miller/

    norcal (a6130b)

  39. The smaller photo below, that is.

    norcal (a6130b)

  40. California is my home state but me and my wife moved our family in 96 because of business. Many our family still lives in the state and are in both parties, but they are past their limits. They hate Newsom and I suspect this is like most of the stupid laws that have been put out for no good reason. People can make their own minds and do not need government intervention. This is why people are leaving the state.

    JG (db1e92)

  41. nk (1d9030) — 9/3/2021 @ 6:26 pm

    , I’m not defending abortion. I am objecting to the utter lawlessness of the Texas law. It exemplifies “No one’s life, liberty or property is safe when the legislature is in session”. The Texas legislature, anyway.

    They’ve come up with something new. It all relies on institutions following legal advice. Planned Parenthood s afraid to take the risks of losing a lawsuit.

    Newspaper editorials mention a couple of other things that could be prohibited that currently held rulings hold to be unconstitutional. Like an anti hate speech law.

    Sammy Finkelman (51cd0c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1923 secs.