> Knowing the source is critical to solve a problem.

Right, but I think it's important to separate social science from politics, even though the two are related, just as we separate science from technology.

> If cultural pressure is the source, shouldn't it be solved?

I don't think social pressure is the source of power, but just the form it takes, but I agree that in order to change society, those who work to change it would eventually need to address such social pressure. It's just that these things tend to change on their own once material conditions have changed -- but it takes time. It's a little like those who claimed that soldiers would never be able to accept integrated units in the military. Instead of sending psychologists to treat the white soldiers' anxiety, they just integrated the units. After a while, everybody got used to it, and the social pressure and norms changed. Social norms almost invariable (history shows) follow practice, rather than the other way around. Social action therefore strives to change practice, and the norms follow. I am not aware of cases where action can first directly change norms. Sometimes norms change "naturally", due to technological or material changes that are not a result of social action.

> How successful has efforts in the past been in trying to get people that are forced into a situation to also fix the problem of being forced?

Isn't that what revolts are? Revolts fix the problem for both sides.

> Could you define in what way 80% of decisions have been positive for say, men in general in the last 30 years?

First let me say that things have gotten better for women. But the lack of social-security-paid maternity leave and subsidy of child care, still work against women in the US.

You could say that social norms demand that this be the case, but, like I wrote above, I think history shows that social norms are usually reflections of material conditions rather than something deeply ingrained, and also nobody said that power doesn't have any downsides. It's like a king who feels lonely at the top; lonely he may be, but he's still the king.

> Should 8% get equal 50% influence?

No, but it should get 8%.

> In an election, the winning 51% get 100% representation

I'm not interested in fixing the system or in whining about it; just in describing it.

> since the 92% don't intentionally try to mistreat the 8%.

I'm not sure. E.g., in America, the Republican party has been working for years to curtail the voting power of blacks below their share in the population.

> You need intent for discrimination

I don't think so. I can invite people to a party on the roof of my building, which has no elevator. I discriminate against handicapped people without intending to.

> Its only in the last 30 years that the movement changed course.

I strongly disagree with that.

> shouldn't a movement about equality stand for more than that?

I don't know; I know absolutely nothing about political strategy.

> The other side want people to be treated different based on gender and race, but demand that the outcome to be equal.

I disagree; that's not what that side wants at all. That side wants everyone to be treated in a way that recognizes that people are different, but doesn't want the outcome to be the same for every person individually. Nobody is asking that a single, uneducated black mother from Philadelphia be granted a Harvard diploma or get a job as a New York lawyer. They just want the statistical power distribution to be fair. I see no contradiction between this and any previous demands.