California, that leader in progressive ideology, enacted a new law which “requires publicly traded firms in the state to place at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 — or face a penalty.” The law also requires companies that have five directors to add two women in the next four years, and companies with more than six directors to add (you guessed it) three women. The California state legislature passed the measure last month and Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the bill into law Sunday.

Why? Because California hates itself. I mean, actually, because California believes gender parity in the workplace is important and so important it should be regulated. This is a mistake on economic and moral principles.

Gender parity, particularly when forced, doesn’t achieve the results progressives hope. Ten years ago, Norway instituted a similar regulation, mandating female quotas of nearly half of the boards for public companies. Quickly, several other European countries followed.

The results were not as rosy as one would have hoped. The Economist reported that, while some things improved, other things did not and that women seemed to benefit least, save for those who were already in the upper echelon of female achievers. Their research revealed mandating gender parity in the workplace “had no discernible beneficial effect on women at lower levels of the corporate hierarchy.”

Morally, or one could say in terms of societal benefit, gender parity does the sexes and their families no favors. For example, women are getting hired at top companies more and receiving more and higher degrees. Yet, are they happier? If so, why do they keep whining about it publicly?

According to a new Pew Research study, there are more stay at home dads than ever – although stay at home moms outnumber them still. “A growing share of stay-at-home fathers say they are home specifically to care for their home or family, suggesting that changing gender roles may be at play. About a quarter (24 percent) of stay-at-home fathers say they are home for this reason.”

Still, this isn’t enough for feminists who keep on boosting the theory that if only more women were at work and more men were at home – or somewhere else, they aren’t sure where – productivity would increase, innovation gaps in science caused by a lack of women in the workplace would disappear, and everyone would be happy and healthy. This isn’t supported by research nor by common sense, yet feminists keep pushing it and persuading legislators to regulate it, even though it defies feminist logic.

The point of feminism was to promote equality not because of sex, but in spite of it. Forcing a company to put a woman on their board just because she’s a woman runs the risk of picking someone who is not up to the task but is the right gender. This hurts both the company and the woman in question.

Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.