The CS department at my university (back in the stone age when I went there) had a policy to have equal number men and women in tenured positions. As this was the 1980s, it was a fairly progressive move. They had a really hard time finding qualified women willing to take the post, though. As there were so few women in the field, the demand for them was overwhelming and there were much more reputable institutions than the one I went to with available positions.

This led to the situation where one of the candidates insisted that her husband (who was also a CS academic) be given a job as well as her. The university agreed to her demand, but refused to give him a tenure track position. The funny thing was, IMHO she was not particularly good. I can't remember what she was working on, but it was not very compelling research and she had difficulty getting grants, etc. He, on the other hand, was spectacular (and a great teacher to boot). Eventually, because the university steadfastly refused to give the husband a tenure track position (in a fit of pique???), the couple left the university.

That was my first exposure to this kind of politics and since then I've always kept in the back of my mind that it's always waaaay more complicated than you think it is when you try to introduce weird politics in hiring and promotion policies. Much better to simply clear the barriers as best as you can and measure your progress. It might take longer, but you have a better chance of success, I think.