In an idealized world it should. In reality, people aren't all equal. The circumstances of birth, genetics, society, societal memory and much more contribute to a world that left alone is inherently unfair. I'm for putting a finger on the scales a little bit to even out the inequalities. Not completely! But to look after the worst off, to right past wrongs (and we've made many mistakes getting here) and to push for a world where each individual is able to rise to the level of their competence and positive qualities by looking after their shortcomings. To create a meritocratic system in
spite of the inherent inequalities.
So we're clear, I'm in favor or wealth inequality, and income inequality, but only coupled with social mobility. I'm in favor of having wealth as a reward for your contributions. And for a 90% estate tax to make sure each generation starts off without major advantages. I'm for socialized medicine so the circumstances of your birth or random chance don't stop you from achieving your potential. I'm for creating a world where nobody feels they can't achieve some level of success because of societal norms and if that means temporarily creating 'mandatory' role models, that's fine too.
If the world were inherently fair, wouldn't you already expect corporate boards to represent the rest of the society at large? And yet they don't so someone or somethings' finger must already be on the scales. Unless of course you're telling me only old white men are capable of being board members, that is. So in the interest of fairness, we should push back. A little. See what happens. Then act accordingly.
See how this would fit with my worldview?
I have friends who are incredibly right-wing and absolutely disagree with me, often, and I very much enjoy engaging them in conversation. I don't think they're wrong, I just disagree.
I don't think you're sexist for disagreeing with this law. I agree with it. I have my rationalizations and justifications, and I'm interested in hearing yours, and as always, in debating.