As feminism has dispensed with the notion of legal equality in favor of measures that actively enforce equality of outcome, gender quotas have become the tool of choice for dealing with perceived "inequality" in any venue that women find desirable. This is why we see a push for quotas in management, cushy government jobs, school and such, but not so much in trash collectors, taxi drivers or front-line soldiers. The push for women in combat is an example of the hypocrisy here, because rather than actively put women in combat situations or dangerous assignments where they will stand a higher chance of getting shot or blown up, what the feminists are trying to do is expand the definition of combat so that women can put "combat experience" on their military resume and be favored for higher command.
It's gone pretty far in the US, but in Norway they've taken it farther and legislated that all publicly listed companies reserve 40% of board positions for females. Norwegian companies were not pleased about the move, but of those that remained public or did not flee Norway, all have complied. A study by the University of Michigan took a hard look at the figures to ascertain the effect of this new legislation, and came up with some numbers that demonstrate that the fears of companies were quite rational: the companies that were forced to stuff their boards with women performed significantly worse than they had before.
Feminists are often touting the "benefits" of equality of outcome, but it's time they were confronted with some if its costs, and asked to justify them. Why should we accept less wealth and poorer performance simply because they want to leverage women in a very small, but powerful segment of society?