No Rhys, you're not the only one, I've pretty much been there every day over the last 9 years to pick up my kids from school and what's more my wife is now also self employed and working from home.
Note the language used by the gender griefers, "Affirmed", ""Empowered" etc ?
There's a difference between a strong woman and an empowered woman, a strong woman earns respect and prestige by her own agency, an empowered woman relinquishes her agency to another in exchange for prestige or favourable treatment.
An "Empowered" woman who wholly relies totally upon the affirmation and patronage of others is nothing but the embodiment of the archetypes around which feminist mythology is based, the armless Venus on her pedestal, the bird in the gilded cage or the hapless drudge of Dickensian folklore.
The public service and academia are full of "empowered" women who rely on the state as their patron, they are not strong women, strong women instinctively know they cannot and should not compete with men but accept that strong virtuous femininity and strong virtuous masculinity are always complimentary.

Aristocrat, what exactly do you mean by 'European civilization'?

The Europeans certainly weren't 'civilized' as they went out raping and plundering and occasionally fighting each other.

Currently the U.S. is the greatest raper and plunderer on planet Earth but its President has a Peace Prize.

Ironic, eh!

David G,
So give all your stuff to the Aboriginals and jump off a bridge if you feel so horrible about your history, or have you convinced yourself that you're one of those "Nice", "Progressive" Europeans? I'm convinced that progressives and Liberals are a different caste or ethnic group to normal diaspora Europeans, if not genetically Anglo Saxon they are ideological Anglophiles as the ideas of equality, liberty and the family of man are a peculiar anglo Saxon custom which the rest of us are unable to comprehend. How about we refer to you, the White Racial grievance crowd as "The English" to point out the difference between you and European Australians?

Houellebecq

The dictionary was updated to reflect current usage. If the author intends to provide her own definition, then the dictionary comment is unnecessary, and simply a wink to those who think feminists hijacked the dictionary.

-- I believe it is implied that simply picking the best person who applies for the job would lead to better results.

"This is an issue of equality, but it is also about accessing talent, improving productivity and realising economic opportunity for our businesses and country." Your assumption is incorrect, and there is significant research to back this up.

-- Most households are dependent on male breadwinners

Actually, according to ABS data, about 25%. That is not most. And unless the meaning is wholly dependent, then the argument makes no sense - you would seek to preserve the incomes of both genders.

-- That affirmative action is not employed in these circumstances, so why should it in this instance.

Because, and this was the only point of the story, businesses are more profitable where there is better gender balance. These CEOs are not redesigning society, they are concerned with business.

Interesting assumptions by many that this is about women whingeing. If you read the article, it is about CEOs acknowledging what makes a more functional business leadership. That includes improving gender balance. It is easy to say "hire the best candidate" but if they always turn out to be men, then you need to find out why that is. For the profitability of the business. CEOs are strategists, not social revolutionaries. If women are not gaining the skills to enter the highest levels of management, then there never will be female candidates to compete with the men.
Who knows? We might find out that it is because someone has to stay home with the kids, and so we end up with less capable men floating to the top, and more capable women staying at home. Surely it is in everyone's interests to have both parents involved in parenting, and in everyone's business to have the best skills running our companies.
If it were simply a matter of ability then we would not have such skewed outcomes, because as MikeIAzure notes, there is no reason to assume men just happen to make better leaders.
And Babette, I am sorry, but if that means a man does not get the job of CEO, does instead, a family still benefits. Just a different family. We have had enough corporate collapses to know that skill is important. Of course companies are going to try to find out why they only have one gender to choose from when it comes to senior positions. It would be irresponsible not to.

Imagine the outcry if women had to compete at men's level in order to make a living from tennis, hockey, basketball, athletics etc. Maybe like the army/airforce etc we could again lower the bar. The PM has set the Woman's cause back a few decades by such a terrible performance.