Those are the general arguments in favor of Affirmative Action, but neither explain why we only apply them selectively when we feel like it. "Mom went to colleg

Those are the general arguments in favor of Affirmative Action, but neither explain why we only apply them selectively when we feel like it. "Mom went to college so so can I" is relevant for people who lived in the 50-90s, but for those entering college today, the mother is more likely to have a college degree than the father. "Father went to college so so can I" should be the intention today if we want to fix gender inequality in college graduates. The “oddball” feeling is also very real in profession where a single gender represent over 80%. It was one of the finding in a government report in Sweden why so few men chooses to enter the education profession. With a majority of people working in profession with significant gender imbalance, universal affirmative action would help to reduce the problem of people perceiving a toxic working environment. A universal problem should be solved using universal methods. For normalizing, there is two primary strategic methods. You can treat people special as with affirmative action, or you can treat people being there as being normal by treating people as individuals. Both methods works, but they also work against each other. Treating people as special create hostility and resentment, while treating everyone as individuals has the risk being perceived as supporting statues quo. And yes, we can start at the top. Affirmative action at college applications is not the same as affirmative action at board members. Affirmative action should be universally applied using common rules, but that is sadly not how it get applied. The few times people try to make common rules for affirmative action it get abandoned quickly because the wrong group benefited from it, or it get removed based on anti-discrimination laws.