Europe is not a gender-equality heaven. In particular, the corporate workplace will never be completely family-friendly until women are part of senior management decisions, and Europe’s top corporate-governance positions remain overwhelmingly male. Indeed, women hold only 14 percent of positions on European corporate boards.

    The European Union is now considering legislation to compel corporate boards to maintain a certain proportion of women—up to 60 percent. This proposed mandate was born of frustration. Last year, European Commission Vice President Viviane Reding issued a call to voluntary action. Reding invited corporations to sign up for gender balance goal of 40 percent female board membership. But her appeal was considered a failure: only 24 companies took it up.

    Do we need quotas to ensure that women can continue to climb the corporate ladder fairly as they balance work and family?

    “Personally, I don’t like quotas,” Reding said recently. “But I like what the quotas do.” Quotas get action: they “open the way to equality and they break through the glass ceiling,” according to Reding, a result seen in France and other countries with legally binding provisions on placing women in top business positions.

    I understand Reding’s reluctance—and her frustration. I don’t like quotas either; they run counter to my belief in meritocracy, governance by the capable. But, when one considers the obstacles to achieving the meritocratic ideal, it does look as if a fairer world must be temporarily ordered.

    After all, four decades of evidence has now shown that corporations in Europe as well as the US are evading the meritocratic hiring and promotion of women to top position—no matter how much “soft pressure” is put upon them. When women do break through to the summit of corporate power—as, for example, Sheryl Sandberg recently did at Facebook—they attract massive attention precisely because they remain the exception to the rule.

    If appropriate pubic policies were in place to help all women—whether CEOs or their children’s caregivers—and all families, Sandberg would be no more newsworthy than any other highly capable person living in a more just society.

答案精析：根据关键词European Union和 intended定位到第二段开头，considering legislation与题目的intended legislation对应；而第二句体现了这个提议的态度为born of frustration（由于挫折而产生的），根据后文可知，之前呼吁企业自愿达到性别平衡的行动失败了，只能出台法律来控制董事会男女比例的平衡，可知欧盟并非情愿制定此项法律，B项的reluctant能最贴切地形容欧盟的态度，选B。

错项排除：A选项是全文讨论的主旨，但reflection代表性别平衡已经达到，而事实并非如此，故排除。Reding呼吁的是voluntary action，并非立法强制，故C项错误。而关键词frustration也说明欧盟的行动并非自愿，D排除。