tubbs wrote: "Further justification for Affirmative Action:

Admissions directors cite several reasons for wanting to keep the numbers as equal as possible. Balance makes social life easier. It also helps schools attract the best candidates of both sexes: When the gender balance tilts to a 60-40 ratio, favoring either gender, students are less interested in attending."

I don't know what world you live in but there is no way that this is happening. In Canada, there is a publication that lists all universities with their stats. There are only 2 in the country that have less than 60 % female enrolment. Both are noted engineering schools and the balance is still almost 50:50.

Affirmative action was never needed for women and is particularly NOT NEEDED now! All they had to do was GET AN EDUCATION. They didn't start doing this seriously until the 1980's but even before that, they could get many jobs with far lower credentials. My experience in the 1970's was that classes that lead to good employment prospects had very few women enrolled and sometimes none. Yet a few years later, they were getting hired (and promoted as soon as it would pass the smell test).

When I finally got into management, I determined, at that time, that most female employees had resumes that would have rapidly headed for the shredder if they had been an man's.

This is likely no longer the case. The word got out and few males bother to go into debt by tens of thousands of dollars to get an education that the employers don't want. So now, there is no need to discriminate since most qualified applicants are women.

The real issue for women should have always been, not the supposed discrimination in favour of men, but to question why, even when a major effort was made to hire women, the women hired were almost always the same - pretty, usually blond, busty.