is that perhaps it is possible to find 10 extra resource points in the budget and give them to B so that we finish with 50-50.
The point is that A will very often perceive this as a negative outcome.
The point is that A will very often perceive this as a negative outcome.
Is your assertion that every other aspect of these women's employment is equal to or greater than the corresponding aspect for the men?
"Hey let's end slavery."
"No, I rather secede."
Civil war
Now name an instance where it was fixed by giving them much better treatment than everyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
Has this been systematically tested in some way, or is it simply assumed?
(I think I've seen this happen, so I'm not arguing it doesn't occur, but I am asking what the basis is for assuming it's a primary driver of systemic discrimination. The words "very often" seem like they cross a threshold to generality.)
On the other hand, the creator of Dilbert just shrugged it off and started a new job each time his employer said they couldn't promote another white male.
A 50/50 m/f ratio is not a statistical "proof of equality".
Seriously though, 'often' is just a weasel word if you don't specify the context. This might qualify as a mechanism for dismissing valid complaints...
Often is most of the time. People perceive relative changes as terrible. That's why they arrested Parks instead of agreeing with her.
"A lot of civil rights activist" - which ones and why? Maybe their reasoning is sensitive to their particular interest.
I understand what 'often' means, I don't agree with it as a generality. Even 'People perceive relative changes as terrible' isn't always true.