Why does it need to be 50%? I think 45% is great. Most males are eligible. Many females have children, so the 50% of females gets reduced, so by my off the cuff calculations, the gals are doing really well.
It's funny the things that bring you out of the woodwork but this argument compelled me to register.
I hate to break it to you but many males also have children so if this is the criteria that you are using to ascertain eligibility for a company directorship you've just excluded a group of men as well.
If what you meant to say was that women who have children are more likely to take time out of the workforce than men who have children then you are arguing that continuous experience is an overriding criteria. In this case you would always appoint a 60 year old over a 45 year old. Unless there is something specific about the act of giving birth that makes women less suitable to act as company directors. So can we find a group that take long periods out of the workforce and suffer physical injury yet are still well represented on NZ company boards? Why yes we can! Professional rugby players. Despite not being engaged in industry or the corporate world for much of their 20s and even 30s and some suffering multiple concussions (something far more likely to affect your analytical ability then pushing a baby out of your vagina) former professional rugby players are well represented on NZ's company boards.
So don't try and argue that women are underrepresented because they have children. This attitude that because a woman has taken a few months or years out to have children automatically places her at the back of the queue is exactly why quotas are needed.