>> no longer a need for meetings of the suffragette movement Suffrage is clearly defined, "fair participation has been reached among equally skilled and traine

>> no longer a need for meetings of the suffragette movement Suffrage is clearly defined, "fair participation has been reached among equally skilled and trained participants" is extremely fuzzy. Given blank slatism and any difference in outcome, there's an infinite retreat using a "God of the gaps" argument saying any difference must be due to systematic racism. Even with blank slates it'll never work. If innate ability was equally distributed, but preference is given to a group in university entry, or job opportunities, then that group will have lower innate ability for a level of training or job position. The non-preferenced group would then do better on average! >> Nobody is punished for anything In a zero sum game (like competing for a job) giving some an advantage is the same as giving others a disadvantage. You are suggesting giving someone a penalty, not for something they have done, but because of what group they belong to. >> privileged white male Are all advantages unearned privilege? I chose my mate carefully, worked hard, spent less than I earn and spend time educating my kids. If I give them an advantage in life, should they be handicapped back down to average? I'm a piece of replicating DNA, and I work hard, delaying gratification so my DNA does well in the future. Society is an artifact built on top of this reality. Similarly, my ancestors sacrificed for me. They picked mates with care, followed laws, built societies... They both built a society for themselves, and were shaped by that society. All that work to make me do well, and you want to make us all equal? Why bother working hard or sacrificing for the future? >> members of the group ... resist giving up that advantage You admit above it can "create temporary local unfairness". Then you wonder why people resist it! Especially when they disagree that it's temporary!