Edit: To be clear, I do not support, encourage, or condone discrimination of any protected class. You should be able to discriminate by skill level, of course.
I think most would simply say that it just happened. The number of boards who intentionally conspire to stay all-male is likely very small.
I mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, but I am (genuinely!) curious as to how we can actively prevent "bad" discrimination without using "good" discrimination. Board seats are a zero-sum game, far more men have them than women, so how can we give more to women without taking some from men?
We don't, just like we don't have quotas for roles and say, "This role is being held open for a woman, person of color, or other non-white, non-male person". If it's an all male board, it's an all male board. If it's an all female board, same. You don't legislate discrimination because you feel like it's helpful. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. No mandated quotas. If evidence is uncovered that discrimination is occurring (against any protected class), you pursue legal action against the corporation and its officers.
>(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
You mean, “to avoid also appointing a woman to the board”, presumably.