My personal view is that the case you are putting forward is quite tenuous, and does not justify unequal treatment. Making a "significant difference over a sig

My personal view is that the case you are putting forward is quite tenuous, and does not justify unequal treatment. Making a "significant difference over a significant period of time" is simply too speculative to justify discrimination, especially when the "significant difference" wouldn't necessarily increase people's happiness, productivity, or life satisfaction; one could imagine that making men and women more similar might make both groups worse off. In addition, it seems that most groups' positions and roles seem to be evolving (I assume mostly in their favor), and I have no reason to believe that spontaneous evolution is any 'worse' than affirmative action, especially in long term results. To make your case convincing to me, you would need a clear outline of how the plan would create a Pareto improvement (which would not necessarily be pecuniary), and you would also need to outline a way of determining whether the plan is working. In my view, there is a danger of executing a plan which has no chance of working, and continuing to rachet-up the discrimination in the vain hope that 'it might work if we try harder'. I would also require your plan to have a much better expected outcome than the status quo. Perhaps there is also an alternative argument which would convince me that procedural discrimination was 'worth it', but I haven't heard it yet.