Viviane Reding has just put forward an EU proposal to force membership of public company boards to be 40% women (currently 15%) on penalty of huge fines, and is being voted on right now despite advice saying the attempt is illegal. As far as I'm concerned who is employed, especially at the top levels, can only be on both merit and those who apply in the first place. Various studies over the years have shown the major reason women appear less at the top of all businesses is they simply don't apply for as many of the jobs as men, for various reasons including valuing family life more and not liking the competitive atmosphere at that level. But if governments want to change the way things work in society they can provide incentives and education, but legislating on what are entirely social issues and not directly protecting individuals they have stepped across a line I'd call totalitarian as outside the role of a democratic government, although of course the EU commission who make these rules aren't democratic as unelected. Even if this doesn't go through tonight it shows what levels they are prepared to legislate on, and if not this time more will doubtless follow.

article here

To carry that sort of logic to the legislators, certain male winners of elections should be denied seating because some % of women who lost need to be seated to meet a quota? Is there an overachievement clause that says if the numbers are 80% women, 30% need to resign so more men can be added?

Exactly my point. Social engineering by decree in one area opens the floodgates to everywhere. Force quotas across an entire continent in one area and you can guarantee more will follow. In the end merit will come a very low third or fourth while other requirements will prevail. But the main principle is the right governments have to tell their employers (ie us) who they can and can't employ. The rules against discrimination are one thing, forcing you to pick one applicant over another is something quite different as one is inclusive (ie preventing prejudice and bad treatment) while the other is taking over personal choice on pain of huge penalties. I always thought that only happened in places like the Soviet Union and China but seems even the old democracies are catching on now given half a chance. But the key seems to be once enough people know it's happening they start voting differently. Very few ordinary voters want such draconian regulations.

I find a failure in the USA system follows this logic. The nation is based on individual rights. Around a hundred years ago (about the time of suffrage laws) there started being special 'privileges' given to married couples. Two could file taxes independently or as a couple, whichever benefitted them most, decidely giving more of the burden to the single taxpayer. Now there is an effort to expand the definition of a couple to spread those privileges to a wider population of 'pairs'. This further debases the standing of singles. A country of individuals with rights is fast becoming a nation of pairs with privileges.