> If you don't recognize the politics in science, you end up with eugenics and bias in the data.

That's not what I meant. I meant let's separate the science (i.e., what the reality is) from the technology (i.e., how to apply what we've learned about reality). Both are important and intertwined, but I need to know when you're talking about the science and when you're talking about the technology.

> I would claim that the case of the solider lacks to mention a critical third-party. Its not that the soldiers themselves that decided to integrated the units.

Of course. That's how social action usually takes place: by forcing those who oppose it after obtaining a coalition with enough power to do that.

> The process was very slow

That's exactly what I said in my previous comment. Social norms can change in two ways: quickly after a material change (sometimes due to social action and sometimes due to a sudden technological or environmental change), or slowly and "naturally". But social action almost invariably changes conditions first (by shoving them down people's throats).

> I know that where I live, Sweden, both those things exist and our work market is even more gender segregated that the US work market.

Indeed, that is a very interesting phenomenon and one that is currently being studied. I don't know if we have a good explanation for it yet. But again, this is mixing science with technology. That certain laws work in favor of men doesn't mean that removing them would shift the balance in favor of women (as there may be other forces in play). If I have a noose around my neck and am slowly suffocating, there is no question that this is bad. But that doesn't mean that cutting the noose is better, as I may be hanging over an abyss. So this is why it is crucial to separate observation and description from prescriptions. We can discuss them both (although I know little about political action) but they are not the same thing.

> It did not change the cultural expectancy that society has on from female and male roles in society.

1. Not yet (in the US, it took the south over 100 years to get over blacks' perception as subhuman; in fact it may not even be complete). 2. See above.

> I would not go and claim it is anything supported by white men as a group

You're using that word again: support. When talking about power we don't care what you think, feel or support. We care about the power you have. Those actions work to increase the power of whites. Whether all, some or a tiny minority of whites actually support those actions is irrelevant to this descriptive analysis.

> Its a meaningless term if everything everyone do is unintentionally discrimination towards someone.

That's why social scientists take great care to explain what kind of discrimination they're talking about. But your example of the elevator isn't completely artificial. Look at all the laws enacted to make public places accessible to disabled people.

> Before it, the trend where going towards less segregation. After it, to more.

Sorry, I don't see it.

> Recognizing peoples similarity is more important than to recognizes the minute way people are different, and it just happen that I prefer a society that focus on similarities than a society that focus on differences.

But we're not talking about individial differences. In America, blacks and whites aren't different in some minute way. One group has been enslaved for two centuries, and then forcibly put down for another two centuries. We're talking about major, catastrophic differences in the way society has treated different groups for centuries. We can't just say, alright, from now on we're all the same, because centuries of gross discrimination and exploitation have already made significant material marks that should be addressed.