Ah, that makes much more sense, thank you. > there's the intuitive fact that remedying discrimination is by definition going to cause the previously elevated

Ah, that makes much more sense, thank you. > there's the intuitive fact that remedying discrimination is by definition going to cause the previously elevated party to lose that I think it's more than an intuitive fact. There's at least one study I can think of - "Gender Quotas and the Crisis of the Mediocre Man"[1]. And it seems to support the idea that there's a loss, at least in the short term, for the previously elevated party. I still don't think it's a zero-sum game in the long term. But that is at the core of the problem - people feel threatened now, they don't always care that in the long run, things might turn out well. Which prompted me to write my reply in the first place - anything that reinforces the notion of a zero-sum game is incredibly toxic to resolving this issue. And even if we'd all be at our most level-headed selves, it's a rather hard issue to solve. (It's worth noting that we're off on quite a tangent. None of the above really relates to sexual harassment that much. That is an abuse of power. While I'm an avowed feminist, I'm not convinced that simply having more equality in the work force will solve the issue of harassment. That likely requires a huge cultural shift to our basic mode of thinking) [1] http://perseus.iies.su.se/~tpers/papers/Draft170122AER.pdf http://perseus.iies.su.se/~tpers/papers/Draft170122AER.pdf